The evolution of Arthurian romance from the beginnings down to the year 1300. Second edition with a supplement by Alfons Hilka (Goettingen). Volume II

“James Dou

ah et Ummm

wT I

| f j ii i ii ii ii W | |

Q1TO HARRASSOWITZ
BUCHHANDLUNG
NIA SLEIPZIG:

‘O)afellet-)mineyan

Digitized by Oc! @ UNIVERSITY OF-VIRG

Ol aleliatelmigelas

Digitized by O UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Helperia
Erganzungsreihe: Schriften 3ur englifden Philologie
herausgegeben von James W. Bright

Ergdnzungsreihe 9. Heft

The

Evolution of Arthurian Romance
From the Beginnings

Down to the Year 1300
by

James Douglas Bruce, Ph. D.

Professor of English Language and Literature
in the University of Tennessee.

Second Edition
with a supplement by Alfons Hilka (Goettingen)
Volume II

Gottingen Dandenhoed & Rupredt 1928
Baltimore: The Johns Hoptins Press

ized ty Google

Virginiana

PRINTED BY
OMNITYPIE GES. NACHF. L. ZECHNALL |
STUTTGART, GERMANY

Google

The announcement of Professor Bruce’s death, five months
ago, was a shocking surprise to his academic colleagues. He
was widely known as a man of that well — poised physical
vigor which warrants plans reaching far into the future; and
Professor Bruce had eagerly entertained plans for a longer life
than was to be his. The completion of the work now published
brought to a close a period of a dozen years in which he almost
exclusively devoted his study and research to the execution of
_ the purpose he has briefly described in the preface to the first
volume. He was attracted to this task by the conviction that
by no less laborious undertaking could the complex history of
the study of his chosen subject be surveyed and made available
as a stimulating guide to future investigation and interpretation.

Professor Bruce was stricken, while in his class-room, on
Wednesday, February the fourteenth, and remained unconscious
until his death five days later, February the nineteenth. Of
the work now published the proofs of the second volume had
not been corrected, and the manuscript of the Index of Subject-
Matter and Index of Critics, in unrevised form, remained to be
extended to include the references to the second volume. What
was thus left to be done was also attended by delays and com-
plications in bringing together the material for the second
volume as it was found in Professor Bruce’s library. This con-
siderable task of seeing the second volume through the press
has been almost entirely performed by Dr. Morris Edmund
Speare. He has exercised the required technical skill, and
especially shown on admirable devotion to the memory of a
true scholar.

16. July, 1923.
JAMES W. BRIGHT

Contents of Vol. IL
Part III: The Prose Romances (concluded).

Chapters Page
X. Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero . 1
1. The Didot-Perceval . .......2.. 1
2. The Perlesvaus . . ee a 8
XJ. Palamedes and other late Howianced ee ae eS & a c& ~2O
1. The Palamedes . . i.-w2 ke 4 “20

2. The Compilation of Rusticiano da Piga re ae

Go ogle

IV

Contents of Vol. II.

Chapters

XII.

V~.

3. Les Prophecies de Merlin
4. Le Chevalier du Papegau

. Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanii .

. The Influence of the Prose Romances on subsequent Liter-
ature a a ca a ae oe a a

Part IV: Discussions.

. Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon) .
. Brutus, Eponymus of the Britons . .
: Supplementary Observations on the Question: Were there

Arthurian romances before Chrétien? .

. The Mabinogian Controversy .

. The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain

. Date of Chrétien’s Perceval ..

. The Elucidation and Bliocadrans-Prologue

. Miss Weston’s Gawain-Complex .

. The Didot-Perceval ..
. Robert de Boron, his Origin, the date of his poem, and

its relation to the Didot-Perceval .

. The Theories of Brugger and Lot concerning the Origin

of the Vulgate Cycle ..
The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle

Part V: Analyses and Bibliographies.

. Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography .

1. French Arthurian Romances in Verse .

. Portuguese and Spanish Versions of Arthurian Romances
. Italian Versions of Arthurian Romances . ee x
. German Versions of Arthurian Romances .

Dutch Versions of Arthurian Romances

Vl. Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle

VIL.

1. L'Estoire del Saint Graal

2. Vulgate Merlin .

3. Lancelot ..

i La Queste del Saint Graal
. La Mort Artu

A Sosa Bibliography of Arthurian ‘Critical Literature

Bibliography for Part I
Bibliography for Part II .
Bibliography for Part III

Index Of Critics
Index of Subject-Matter

Supplement by A. Hilke

Google

Chapter X.

Prose Romances in which Perceval
is the Grail Hero.

Besides the Pseudo-Robert cycle, in which, just as in the
Vulgate, Galahad is represented as the Grail hero, there are two
other romances, also, posterior in date to the Vulgate cycle,’ in
which Perceval is restored to his old place of preeminence, which
Galahad had usurped. The romances in question are the so-called
Didot-Perceval and the Perlesvaus.2_ Leaving for another section
of this work’ the justification of the views here expressed in re-
gard to the respective dates of these romances and their relations
to the Vulgate cycle, we shall now proceed to outline, as far as
seems necessary, the contents of these works.‘

1. The Didot=Perceval.

This brief romance’ commences where Robert’s Merlin left
off — namely, just after Arthur's coronation as king of Logres

‘The opposing views of Miss Weston, Brugger, etc., on this
subject will be discussed, Part IV, below.

* The first of these romances was, in a certain sense, cyclic,
inasmuch as its author attached it to Robert’s Joseph and Merlin;
the latter, in the opinion of the present writer, was not cyclic. Cp.
Part IV, below.

* Cp. Part IV, below.

* A pretty full analysis of the Perlesvaus is necessary, to make
comprehensible the subsequent discussion, Part IV, concerning its true
place | in the evolution of the prose cycles.

* In my analysis I follow the Modena MS. text, as published by
Miss Weston, Legend of Sir Perceval, 1, 9— 112 (London, 1909).
The Queste proper ends, p. 84. The remainder is a Mort Arthur. —
For a fuller discussion of the problems concerning the place of the
Didot-Perceval in the evolution of the Arthurian romances, see Part IV,
below.

Tefperia, Ergtinsungsreihe: 9. 1

Google

2 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

(Britain). Merlin now appears on the scene and informs the barons
that the new king is really the son of his predecessor, Uther Pen-
dragon. They, in turn, recommend Merlin to Arthur as the pro-
phet who was his father’s friend and the originator of the Round
Table. Merlin predicts to Arthur that the latter will be the third
king of Britain to become, also, king of France and emperor of
Rome,’ but declares that he (Arthur) must first render the Round
Table glorious. The sage, then, tells briefly the history of the
Grail and its wanderings and how its keeper, the Rich Fisher
King, now sick, is awaiting the coming of the Grail Knight. This
knight 1s to be a knight of the Round Table, and he is to ask
the question that will heal the sick king of his infirmities and
put an end to the enchantments of Britain. Having thus delivered
himself, Merlin goes off to Northumberland — to Blayse, who
had been the confessor to his (Merlin’s) mother and who was
accustomed to record Merlin’s sayings (p. 13).8

The fame of Arthur’s court reaches Alain le Gros, Perceval’ 8
father, and the latter wishes to send his son thither, but dies,
before he can do so. After his father’s decease, however, Perce-
val goes there on his own account. Arthur dubs him knight, and,
inspired by love of Elaine, Gawain’s sister, he proves himself
superior to all of Arthur’s other knights, in a great tournament
at Pentecost. After this, he occupies the vacant seat? at the Round
Table, whereupon a great cry is heard and darkness fills the hall.
A voice, then, denounces Perceval’s hardihood, foretells sufferings
for him and for his fellow-knights of the Round Table, because
of this act, and avers that, but for the merits of his father and
grandfather (Bron), he would have been cast down into the abyss,

* Sommer’s Vulgate Version, II, 88.

7 According to the Didot. MS. (Miss W. II, p. 1], note 1), the
Sibyl and Solomon had already made this prediction about Arthur
before Merlin.

* This motif, adopted from Robert's Merlin, is repeated more
than once in the romance. Cp. pp. 68, 84, 85 and, in its Mort Arthur
section, pp. 102, 111, 112.

* As he does this, the seat — which is of stone — splits (p. 21),
but joins together Jater on, when he wins the Grail (p. 84).

C0 ogle

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 3

as a punishment therefor. The voice announces, too, the presence
of the Grail in the land, and repeats what Merlin had already
said in regard to the Grail Knight, the Rich Fisher King, and the
enchantments of Britain. Perceval and the other knights now vow
that they will go on a quest for the Grail, never staying two conse-
cutive nights in the same place. Arthur and his barons grieve
sorely at their departure (p. 22).

The writer narrates only Perceval’s adventures on this quest,
and these, which, in the main, are mere variations of motifs
furnished him by Chrétien’s Perceval and Wauchier’s continuation
of that work,’° have, in reality, little to do with the Grail. During
his wanderings, however, he returns to his father’s house and
hears from his sister of their mother’s death (p. 38). Having
learned his identity, his sister takes him for confession to their
hermit-uncle (Alain’s brother), who has told her that God had
pre-ordained Perceval to be the Grail Winner. The hermit con-
firms what she had said and warns his nephew, as the scion of
a holy family, against the killing of knights and against other
sins. The very next day, however, Perceval, in defending his sister,
is compelled to kill a knight (p. 43). After two victorious en-
counters on the way,!! he is told the direction of the Grail castle
by two naked children (each six years old), whom he found dis-
porting themselves in the branches of a tree at the crossing of

1° For the correspondences in detail, cp. Part IV, below. At the
commencement of the quest the adventures are 1. the episode (pp. 23 ff.)
of Perceval’s combat with Orguelleus de le Lande — Knight of the
Tent — taken from Chrétien. 2. the first part of the long complex
of Perceval’s adventures (pp. 31 ff.) which began at the castle of the
magical chessboard and of the girl who grants him her love on con-
dition that he will bring her a certain stag’s head — taken from
Wauchier. These imitations of the poets in question are typical of
the rest. |

** In the second of these — the adventure of the Perilous Ford
(pp. 50ff.), suggested by Wanuchier — we have the striking incident
of the sorceress transforming herself and her maidens into birds and
coming to the assistance of Perceval’s adversary, her lover. For
parallels to this incident in the Welsh Dream of Rhonabwy and other
Celtic sources, cp. Miss Weston, LI, 207 ft.

1%

Go ogle

4 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

four roads (pp. 55f.). Proceeding towards the.castle, he comes
upon his grandfather (as it later turns out), the Rich Fisher (Bron),
in a+boat with two men. Despite his grandfather's directions
about the road to the castle, Perceval only finds it with much
difficulty. Whilst they are at dinner, the Grail procession — a
girl, with a cloth about her neck and carrying two small silver
plates, a valet bearing a bleeding lance, and another valet holding
aloft the Grail in his hands — pass twice through the room, but
Perceval, from a variety of motives (fear of troubling his host,
remembrance of his mother’s warnings not to ask too many ques-
tions, and, lastly, fatigue), failed to ask the necessary question
(p. 59). The next morning the castle is empty, and when Perce-
val goes forth into the forest, he comes upon a weeping girl, who
upbraids him for the failure just mentioned and his consequent
responsibility for the Grail king’s continued infirmity, but tells
him that this is the castle of his grandfather, the Fisher King,'*
and that he must return there for another trial. Perceval, how-
ever, is unable to discover the Grail castle again. During the
seven years of his continued wanderings that now follow, his ad-
ventures are altogether secular in character, save that we have the
motif repeated from Chrétien of his neglect of religion, his meeting
with the penitents, the rebuke which he received from them for
riding armed on Good Friday, and his subsequent confession to
his hermit-uncle (p. 68). From this uncle, besides, he learns of
his sister's death. After other adventures, he comes upon Merlin,
who reproaches him for violating his vows in regard to the quest
and puts him on the road to the Grail castle (p. 81). Perceval
reaches this castle the same day and the Grail procession again
passes through the hall, but this time he asks the fateful question
and his grandfather, Bron, the Fisher King, is healed. After
imparting to Perceval the secrets of the Grail which Christ had
taught Joseph in prison, Bron places the vessel in his nephew’s
hands and passes away. The enchantments of Britain now cease

and henceforth Perceval is the Grail king.

** All this is, of course, drawn from Chrétien.

Go ogle

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 5

The insignificant Mort Arthur which follows immediately
upon this Perceval-Quest differs so little from the account of the
last phase of Arthur’s career which we find in Wace!® that any
further analysis of it seems unnecessary. The most striking de-
parture from the Geoffreyan tradition which tne narrative offers
is in placing the scene of Arthur’s last battle on an island'* near

‘® On this subject cp. F. Lot, Bibliotheque del’ Ecole des Chartes,
LXX, 568 (1909) and Bruce, RR, IV, 448ff., including notes (1913).

4 Such seems to be the meaning of the passage, Miss Weston,
II, 1, not Ireland. That the king of this isle should be a Saxon is
not surprising; for Sazon (Saisne), as is well-known, was used as a
general term in the mediaeval romances for “heathen”. The heathen
of a somewhat later time, — viz. the Scandinavian vikings — did
spread themselves all over these Western isles.

In Romama, XLV 16ff., F. Lot contends that this departure
from the Geoffreyan tradition is due to a misunderstanding of Geoffrey's
Vita Merlini, 1. 1115, where, after Mordred’s usurpation, Arthur is
represented as returning to Britain and driving his nephew trans aequora
diffugientem. Lot interprets aequora as referring to the river, Cambula,
(Geoffrey, Book XI, ch. 2.), on which Arthur fought his last battle with
Mordred. But, in the opinion of the present writer, there is no need of putting
this (to say the least of it) unusual construction on the word, for in
the context aequora can well mean the seas that lie between Britain
and Germany. In Geoffrey's Historia (Book XI, ch. 1.), Mordred had
sent Cheldric to Germany to gather together Saxon troops; in the
Vita Merlini, he goes there, himself, for this purpose. The lines,
1112ff., of the Vita with which we are most immediately concerned
are the following:

Ast ut fama mali tanti sibi venit ad aures

Distulit [Arthur] hanc belli curam patriamque revertens
Applicuit multis cum milibus atque nepotem

Obpugnans pepulit trans aequora diffugientem.

Tlic collectis vir plenus proditione

Undique Saxonibus, coepit committere pugnam

Cum duce, set cecidit, deceptus gente prophana

In qua confisus tantos inceperat actus.

The true reason, then, we believe, for the change was the one
stated in the text above. Lot, indeed, Lancelot, p. 195. note 1, already
recognizes this. Possibly, too, the vague description in Robert’s " Joseph,
ll. 3122, of the lands adjacent to Avalon (Avaron) may have had some
influence with the author in this passage, as in the beginning of his

Google

6 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Ireland, instead of in Britain — probably, for the reason that
the author wished to bring this scene nearer to the supposed site
of Avalon (in the Western seas), whither the wounded Arthur
was to be borne after the battle.

The Didot-Perceval was undeniably composed as a continua-
tion of Robert de Boron’s Joseph-Merlin, and several distinguished
Arthurian scholars have even regarded it as simply a prose ren-
dering of a lost work of that writer’s,'* although no such claim is
made for it in the two extant MSS. of the romance. Certain con-
flicting conceptions, however, between its narrative and that of
Robert’s genuine compositions prove that the assumption is un-
warranted — e. g. 1. In Robert’s Merlin it is said that the knight
who was to fill the vacant seat at the Round Table must first
have filled the vacant seat at the Grail Table. But the order of
things here indicated is exactly reversed in the Didot-Perceval.
2. In Robert the Grail Table and the Round Table are kept clearly
apart; in the Didot-Perceval they are confused. 3. In the Didot-
Perceval, owing to the influence of Chrétien’s continuators, the

romance, p. 12, where the Fisher King’s habitation is placed “en ces
illes d'Irlande’. Altogether, we see no necessity of assuming with Lot,
Romania, loc. cit., that the Vita Merlini was a source of the Mort
Arthur section of the Didot-Perceval, unless we assume, also, that
Morgan's attendance on Arthur in Avalon was an invention, pure and
simple, of Geoffrey in this poem. But that is not probable. Cp. Vol. I,
79f. note, above. Contrary to Lot, Lancelot, p. 195, note 1, we
believe that the location of the Fisher King's dwelling, just mentioned,
was suggested rather by Robert than by the Vita Merlin.

** About the end of this Mort Arthur (p. 111), it is said that
Arthur told the Britons that he would return — hence they waited
forty years for him, before they elected a new king. Then the author
adds: “Mais tant sacies vous que li auquant l'ont puis veu es fores
cacier, et ont oi ses chiens avuec lui, et li auquant i ont eu esperance
lonc tans qu'il revenist’’.

It will be seen from this last sentence that here, as elsewhere,
the departed king has usurped the place of the Wild Huntsman in
the famous storm-myth. On Arthur in this réle, in general, see
J.D. Bruce, RR, HI, 191ff., and Archer Taylor, “Arthur and the
Wild Hunt”, ibid., XII, 286ff. (1921).

** Cp. Part IV.

Google

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 7

Grail is more imposing than in Robert.!* 4. Doubtless, under this
same influence and under that of Chrétien, himself, the lance,
which was wanting in Robert, appears in the Grail procession.'®

More telling, however, than even these inconsistencies is the
difference of style. For the present romance, as stated above,
is, in incident and outlook, like its chief sources, Chrétien and
Wauchier, romantic, and, for the most part, secular, whereas
Robert’s sober genius, to judge from his undisputed works, keeps
within the bounds of Christian legend (in the Joseph) and pseudo-
history (in the Merlin). Altogether, the Didot-Perceval is an
unoriginal composition, in respect to both style and contents. As
far as the latter are concerned, they are drawn, in the main, as
we have seen, from Chrétien and Wauchier, although varied, nat-
urally, in the re-telling. It is, accordingly, not the intrinsic merit
of the romance that has made it the centre of so much discussion,
but the place which it has filled in the theories of certain scho-
lars concerning the evolution of the prose romances.'® There is,
really, no valid reason, however, for viewing it as the archetype,
so to speak, from which the Queste and Mort Arthur branches
of the great Vulgate cycle developed. It is rather an independent
romancer’s completion of the prose Robert,* and, in its brevity, it
conforms to the latter.

*7 Cp. pp. 59, 82. ** Ibid.

** Cp. Part IV, for a full discussion of these matters. The motives
which have led the scholars in question to give the romance this
relatively early dating are, 1. their identification of it with the con-
tinuation of Robert’s work which, as appears from the latter part of
the Joseph, he was planning at the time that he wrote that poem.
2. their reluctance to acknowledge that Perceval could again become
the Grail Winner, after having been once superseded by Galahad. On
this subject, however, see Part IV. ?

*° In the Didot-Perceval, Alain (Perceval’s father) is always
called Alains li Gros. Cp. pp. 12, 14, 17, 40f., 69, 82. This is
an indication that its author used the (secondary) prose version of
Robert, not the original metrical version, for the epithet, lt Gros, is
attached to the name only in the former.

Lot’s discussion, Lancelot, pp. 183ff., implies that the Mort
Arthur of the Didot-Perceval must have been composed before the

Google

8 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

2. The Perlesvaus.

The story opens*! in Arthur’s palace at Carduel on Ascension
Day, when the king discovers Guinevere in tears and learns, on
inquiry, that her distress is caused by the decline in the splendor
of the royal court. Formerly, on festival days, the knights that
assembled there could hardly be numbered. Now they were shame-
fully few and adventures seemed a thing of the past. Arthur
acknowledges that he is to blame for the decline, since he has

battle of Bouvines — Aug. 27, 1214 — since the French play such
a submissive part in it. But the writers of the time recognized that
Arthur's continental conquests belonged to a world of the imagination
and not of reality, so that our author may have very well followed
the Geoffreyan tradition in these episodes, without feeling that patriotic
susceptibilities were involved in the matter.

Evidence is wanting to determine even the relative date of the
présént romance, but I see no obstacle to regarding it as subsequent
to the Vulgate cycle, and belonging, say, to the third decade of the
thirteenth century. An old line of tradition, as I have often had
occasion to remark, frequently persists by the side of one of later
origin, so that the absence of any certain influence on the romance
from the Vulgate does not necessarily possess any significance. The
prominence given to Lancelot, pp. 15ff., may, after all, be due to the
influence of the prose Lancelot. See further on this subject Part IV,
below.

*' Up to the present time there has been but one edition of the

- Perlesvaus, viz. C. Potvin's, in Vol. I (Mons, 1866) of his Perceval

le Gallows ou le Conte du Graal. Another, however, is being prepared
by W.A. Nitze and others, including J. T. Lister, who has already
published, on his own account, the opening section of the text with an
introduction — in the form of a University of Chicago dissertation, Perles-
vaus, Hatton Manuscript 82, Branch 1 (Menasha, Wisconsin, 1921).
For descriptions of the Perlesvaus MSS. see E. Wechssler, ‘‘Handschriften
des Perlesvaus’, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XX, 80ff. (1896) and the dissertations
of Nitze and Lister. In the last-named the earlier literature of the
subject is given. For errors in H. O. Sommer's article, “An unknown
MS. and two early printed editions of the Prose-Perceval”, MLN, XXI,
225f. (1906) see Nitze, “Dr. Sommer’s alleged discovery of a new
MS.”, op. cit. XXII, 27 (1907) and Sommer's “A note on the Prose-
Perceval’, ibtd. pp. 94f. On the early prints (Paris) of 1516 and
1523, cp. Nitze, loc. cit.

Google

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Gratl Hero 9

lost the spirit of largesse and has fallen into ‘‘a feebleness of
heart.” On his wife’s advice, he decides to go to a chapel of
St. Austin (Augustine) in the forest and pray to God that he
may be reformed. Accordingly, he bids Chaus, a young man at
court, the son of Yvain the Bastard, prepare to accompany him
thither in the morning. That night, however, Chaus dreams that
the king has already gone ahead of him and that, in hurrying
to overtake him, he (Chaus) comes upon a chapel in a cemetery,
dismounts, enters it, and finds therein the dead body of a knight
covered with a rich cloth and surrounded by burning candles. The
intruder carries off one of the golden candlesticks, but encounters
in the forest a hideous, black man, of giant stature, who challenges
him to surrender the stolen article. He refuses, and, intending
to deliver it, instead, to Arthur, endeavors to outspeed the chal-
lenger. He fails, however, and his enemy thrusts a knife into
his side. At this point the young man awakens, and calls out
that he has been slain. He tells the king his dream and, on
examination, it is discovered that he has really received a mortal
wound from a knife that is still sticking in his side, and, sure
enough, when this knife is drawn out, the wounded man expires.
At his father’s request the golden candlestick is presented to St.
Paul’s church in London, in order that prayers might be said there
for the dead man’s soul.

Warned by this marvellous incident, Arthur makes his jour-
ney to St. Austin’s chapel, alone, but on the way thither he has
an experience which illustrates the wonder-working power of Our
Lady: In the chapel of a hermitage where he has turned in for
the night, he over-hears a strife between angels and devils con-
cerning the soul of the hermit, who, after forty years of a robber’s
life and five years of repentance and penance therefor had died
that night. The devils argued, plausibly, that the forty years
of crime outweighed the few years of atonement, but Our Lady
intervened, and, declaring that the decision in such cases depended
on the character of the man’s life at the time of his decease, drove
the fiends away. Similarly, when the king arrives at St. Austin’s,
he sees the Christ-child and hie mother assisting the hermit of

Google

10 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

the chapel in the celebration of the mass. Then, when the hermit
is about to perform the sacramental rite, Our Lady places her
son in his hands and the child becomes the bleeding Christ of
the crucifixion, although later he resumes his former shape.
‘During all this scene in St. Austin’s chapel, Arthur is not
permitted to cross the threshold, because of the sin of his recent
decline in chivalry, as he learns from the hermit. He promises
amendment, however, and learns from the holy man of the mis-
fortunes which Perceval has latterly brought upon the land of
the Fisher King by his failure to ask the questions concerning
the Grail — what purpose it served and whence it came. Among
other adventures, too long to recount here, which he has on his
return to Carduel, Arthur again meets a girl who had directed
him to St. Austin’s chapel and she relates to him the story of
Perceval’s youth up to the time that he was knighted by Arthur.®?

** His father’s name, as given here by Perceval’s sister, is “Vilein
le gros des vaus de Kamaaloth’, according to Potvin’s text (p. 19),
which is based on the Brussels MS., but the form, Vilein, which
occurs frequently in this text (pp. 139. 142, 145, et passim). is
certainly a mere corruption of Alen. Another frequent corruption of
the name in Potvin's text is Julien, pp. 3 et passim.

Perceval’s mother is Ygloas, (Yglai, Iglais): Cp. pp. 2f. In this
text, moreover, the hero's own name is generally Percevax or Perceval
(cp. pp. 105, 106, 181, 302, etc.), but sometimes Perlesvax (Perlevaz,)
Perllesvax or Pellesvaus. Cp. respectively, for the latter pp. 19, 87
and 43, 56. The romance is entitled Pellesvaus in the explicit at
the end. Perceval’s sister explains to Arthur the origin of the name,
Perlesvazx, as follows (p. 19): “Sire, fet-ele, quant il fu nez, si demanda
(on) son pere commant il: auroit non an droit bautesme. Et il dist
qu'il vouloit qu'il eust non Perlesvax; quar li sires de Mores li toloit
la greignor partie des vaus de Kamaaloth, si voloit qu'il an souvenist
son fil par cel non, se Diex le monteploiot, tant qu'il fust chevaliers’’.
Cp. too, p. 181.

Furthermore, Perceval is called Par-/ui by his. valet (p. 61) and
Par-lui-fez (fet) by his hermit uncle pp. 87, 105. The first is pro-
bably a mere MS. error for the second, which means’ “self-made”, —
por ce qu'il c’estoit fet par lui memes (p. 105). — for Perceval had
ho regular training in knight hood. P. 87, however, his sister declares
that his true name is Perllesvax, not Par-lut-fez. Par-lui-fez is

Go ogle

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 11

She begs the king, moreover, to apprise Perceval, should he meet
him, of the straits to which their mother has been reduced by the |
King of the Moors and the brother of the Red Knight whom
Perceval has slain. Arthur goes on his way, but before he
reaches his destination, a voice proclaims to him in the depths of
the forest (p. 22) that he must hold court as soon as possible; for
the world which had deteriorated through his fault, is about to
take a turn for the better. ©

As a result of his late miraculous experiences, Arthur under-
goes now a thorough change of heart. His love of honor and
of largesse return to him in full measure, and, obeying the in-
junction of the voice, he appoints the next meeting of his court
for St. John’s Day at “Pannenoisance qui siet sor la mer de
Gales’ (p. 24) — doubtless, Penzance, on the English Channel.
The barons and knights assemble in great numbers and the new
era of Arthur's glory opens with a greater adventure than his
court had ever known before — namely, the adventure of the
Grail. It commences in the following manner (pp. 24ff.):

Whilst the king and his retinue were seated at the table
and only the first course had been served, there rode into the
hall a damsel on a white mule. It turned out that this damsel was
bald — only she concealed her baldness with a chaplet — having
lost her hair because of Perceval’s neglect to ask the questions
touching the Grail, and that she would not recover her tresses
until the Grail Winner should come to the Fisher King’s castle.
A second: damsel, who accompanied her, carried on horseback a
_ brachet (hound) and a richly bejewelled shield, which was striped
with silver and azure bands and bore also a red cross. Still a .
third damsel, the most beautiful of all, was on foot and was con-
stantly urging on the mounts of her companions with a whip.
As is later disclosed, the shield is that of Joseph of Arimathea,
and, in compliance with the dameel’s directions, it is attached
to a column im the hall, where it is to await the coming of the
Grail Winner. The dog, too, is to remain in Arthur’s castle;

shortened, p. 63, to Parfez by the uncle, who declares here already
that Perceval is self-made.

Go ogle

12 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

it will never show signs of joy until the Grail Winner arrives.
The bald damsel now delivers to Arthur the greetings of the Fisher
King and explains to him, also, how Perceval’s failure to ask
the questions had caused the illness of that mysterious monarch
and plunged his dominions in strife. Still further she calls Ar-
thur’s attention to a strange wagon outside, drawn by three white
stags, on which there lay the heads of one hundred and fifty
knights, some sealed in gold, some in silver and some in lead.*$
These men had all been slain in consequence of Perceval’s failure
(p. 27).

Having concluded their mission, the three damsels, followed
by the strange wagon, disappeared into the forest. Here, how-
ever, they soon meet Gawain (p. 30), whose steed and equipment
were in wretched condition from his long wanderings and numerous
combats. He, too, is on his way to the Fisher King’s country,
and he grants the request of the bald damsel when she prays him
to act as their escort until they have passed the Black Hermit’s
castle. Gawain is touched by the sufferings of the damsel on
foot and when he hears that these sufferings and other afflic-
tions of the land would end, if he should ask the fateful questions
and thereby undo the spell which rests on the land, he resolves
to undertake the adventure. |

Space fails us to recount the exploits and experiences of
Gawain on his journey to the Grail castle, in the company of
the damsels and, afterwards, alone. Some of these episodes have
no real connection with the Grail story. Of those that do have
such @ connection, the most important is the one (pp. 84ff.) which
tells how Gawain obtained through the gratitude of the pagan
king, Gurgalan,** the sword with which St. John was beheaded.

** Nitze points out, MPh., XVII, 161, note, that this is imitated
from Revelation, VII, 3.

** The name is probably an alteration of Murgalan(t) — a
common name for pagan kings in the chansons de geste. Kittredge,
Arthur and Gorlagon (Harvard Studies and Notes tn Philology
and Literature, VIII, pp. 203f., tries to identify it with Gorlagon,
which he derives from the Welsh.

Google

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 13

This sword (the Grail sword) bled every day at midday, since it
was at that hour that St. John was executed. No one could enter
the Grail castle without it (p. 86), says the Fisher King, when
Gawain presents it to him.

On his arrival at the Grail castle, Gawain finds the Fisher
King, as in Chrétien, reclining on a bed,.and his niece, Perceval’s
sister, is, also, in the hall (pp. 86ff.). The king tells his visitor
how his illness was due to Perceval’s omission in regard to the
questions, and begs him not to commit the same mistake. Peroe-
val’s sister, furthermore, thanks Gawain for the protection which
he had recently afforded her mother against the assaults of the
Lord of the Moors, but declares that this warfare is on the point
of being renewed. Whilst they are at dinner, a girl bearing the
Grail and another bearing the bleeding lance pass through the
hall, two angels with candlesticks accompanying them. They dis-
appear in a chapel, but soon return through the hall — only this
time, it seemed to. Gawain that the number of both girls and
angels had increased to three. Moreover, he thinks now that he
sees a child in the Grail, who soon undergoes the same transfor-
mation into the crucified Christ that Arthur had witnessed at
St. Austin’s chapel. This grievous sight had the unfortunate
effect of so touching Gawain’s heart that he forgot all about the
questions — to such a degree, indeed, that when the Grail pro-
cession has again disappeared in the chapel and dinner is over,
he indulges in an inopportune game with the chessmen of the
magic chessboard*® which he observes at the end of the room.
After he had suffered two defeats at the hands of the automatic
chessmen, a damsel enters the room and has the chessboard taken
away, and he falls into a profound slumber, which lasts until mor-

———ee =

** For a discussion of this motif, which occurs in five other
Arthurian romances, cp. especially, Bruce, RR, IX, 375f. (1918). Cp.,
also, Vulgate Merlin, Il, 246, taken from Lancelot, V, 149ff. The
source of the present passage is, doubtless, Wauchier de Denain’s con-
tinuation of Chrétien’s Perceval, ll. 22442ff. The insertion of the
incident at the most solemn point in Gawain’s Grail quest is a proof
of our author’s bad judgment. |

Google

14 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

ning. He hears in the early morning the services that are held
in the Grail chapel on account of the sword of St. John, which
Gawain has brought to the Fisher King, but he is not allowed
to enter this chapel, and a damsel reproaches him with his neg-
lect to ask the unspelling questions. Still further, a voice bids all
that are in the castle depart; the drawbridge, it declares, must
now be raised on account of the king of the Chastel Mortel, through
whom “the lion” (Fisher King) is to die (p. 90). Thus, like
Perceval, Gawain has failed in his quest.

After Gawain’s quest of the Grail (pp. 30—90) follows that
of Lancelot (pp. 91—132), which is even more futile. The tran-
sition from the one to the other is formed by an incident in which
Gawain comes to Lancelot’s rescue in an unequal combat of the
latter against four knights. The narrative of Lancelot’s quest,
however, contains an even larger proportion of matter that is ex-
traneous to the main theme than is the case with Gawain’s quest.
Lancelot finally reaches the Grail castle and is introduced there
to the Fisher King (p. 130), who inquires of him about Perceval
and informs him that they (Lancelot and himself) are relatives.
Owing, however, to his sinful love for Guinevere, Lancelot is not
privileged to behold the Grail (p. 132).

The two knights who were most highly prized in Arthur’s
court having failed in the Grail quest, it is now the turn of the
successful hero of this adventure to occupy the stage. Apart from
allusions — particularly to his abortive first visit to the Grail

** Cp., for example, the episodes (pp. 109ff.) in which Clamados
des Ombres and Melyot de Logres figure — also, the incident of
Lancelot and the beheading game (p. 103), which is not concluded,
however, until much later in the romance (p. 233). On this incident
cp. G. L. Kittredge, Study of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,
pp. 52ff. (Cambridge, Mass., and London 1916). Cp., too, the episode
of the Castle of Beards (Ritho motif, Geoffrey's Historia, X, 3) pp.
97ff. In his “Spenser and Two Old French Grail Romances”, PMLA,
XXVIII, 539/f. (1913), E. A. Hall maintains (wrongly, I believe) that
Spenser used this episode of the Perlesvaus in his Faerie Queene,
Book VI, Cantos 1—2.

Google

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 15

castle? — Perceval had already figured in the story (pp. 105ff.)
as suffering pangs of distress at the house of his hermit uncle
(King Pelles) on account of his failure on that occasion and con-
sequently confessing himself to his uncle, at the same time that
he disclosed to him his identity. Then, on quitting Pelles’ her-
mitage, he had fought an indecisive combat with his cousin, Lance-
lot (pp. 106f.), neither recognizing the other at first.

After many adventures, including those that render evident
Perceval’s identity with the long expected “Good Knight”, who
is to undo the spell of the Grail castle, he learns from his sister
(p. 178) that the Fisher King is dead and that their wicked uncle,
the King of the Chastel Mortel, has seized the Grail castle. She
has just been informed of this by a miraculous voice at the chapel
of the Perilous Cemetery, and the news is afterwards confirmed
by a message from King Pelles (p. 185). Perceval, however, first
slays his mother’s oppressor, the Lord of the Moors (pp. 183f.),
and achieves still other adventures,?® before he settles down in

*7 Pp. 26, 30, 80, 86. Important, too, is the description of
Perceval, though he is left unnamed, p. 37: “Il a chief d’or, et regart
de Lion, et nombril de virge pucele et cuer d’acier et cors ‘d’olifant,
et tesches sans vileinnie.’’ With some slight difference this description
is repeated, too, pp. 197f. It has been taken over from the Perlesvaus
_into the Livre d’Artus of MS. 337 (Sommer, VII, 52). In the prose-

Lancelot, 11, 27, besides, an interpolator has applied it to Galahad.
Cp. Bruce, RR, IX, 267 (1918). This adaptation of the Perlesvaus
passage to Galahad is not surprising, for two Paris MSS. adapt the
opening episodes of that romance to the Galahad Queste. Cp. Nitze’s
dissertation, p. 7. : :

** Especially noteworthy are his deliverance (pp. 200ff.) of the
Castle of the Golden Circlet (Cescle d’Or) from the Knight of the
Burning Dragon and his conquest of the Copper Castle (pp. 202 ff.).
The golden circlet is really Our Savior’s crown of thorns, which is
awarded to Perceval as the prize of his victory. The Burning Dragon
is the image of a dragon on its owner's shield, but this image emits
real flames. The Copper Castle was an enchanted stronghold of evil
spirits and its entrance was defended by two copper men with iron
mallets. The author had a fondness for such automatic and other
magical contrivances of a mechanical kind. For example, compare the
two copper men who defend the entrance to the Fisher King’s land

Go ogle

16 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

earnest to the redemption of the Grail castle. Nevertheless, he
finally besieges the place-and the King of. the Chastel Mortel,
driven to despair by the slaughter of his knights, commits suicide
(p. 215). The knights of the Fisher King now return to the
castle — also, the priests and damsels that were there before their
lord’s death.

After the recovery of the Grail castle, Perceval’s mission was
fulfilled and our author should have taken example from the
Queste and transported his hero at once to the New Jerusalem
on the Ile Plenteureusse (p. 330). On the contrary, he now plunges
afresh into a series of adventures — many of them pointless and
wholly out of harmony with the spirit of a true romance of the
Grail — the heroes of which are, in turn, Arthur, Gawain and
Lancelot, and not merely Perceval. Especially prominent among
such adventures is the episode of Brians des Illes’ intrigues —
temporarily successful — to undermine Lancelot with Arthur (pp.
273ff.\. At last, however, the ship which was destined to bear
Perceval away from human sight appears at the Grail castle, where
his mother and sister had already died and were buried. He em-
barked in this vessel and the writer avers (p. 347) that no earthly
man knew after that what had become of him. Moreover, the
Grail disappeared from its wonted place and was seen no more.
Notwithstanding these declarations of our author, it is manifest
that the voyage of both the Grail knight and the Grail, according
to his conception, was to the mysterious isle which Perceval had
visited before (pp. 328ff.). Its inhabitants were all of one age
and clad in white garments, marked with red crosses, that are
reminiscent of the Knights Templars. Thence, doubtless, they
passed to the adjacent isle, the Ille Plenteureusse (Bounteous Isle),
where the good were separated from the wicked. These islands
constitute, it would seem, a sort of mystic abode for the Grail

(p. 64) and the turning castle invented by Virgil (pp. 197f.). There
are still other automata, pp. 71—73. On turning castles see G. Huet,
“Le Chasteau Tournant dans la suite du Merlin” Romania, XL, 235 ft.
(1911), and on copper men, Bruce, “Human Automata in Classical
Tradition and Mediaeval Romance”, MPh., X, 511ff. (1913).

Google

Prose Romances in which Perceval 1s the Grail Hero 17

company *® — an ante-chamber, as it were, to the New Jerusalem —
but even here it was possible to miss eternal joy and there was
another isle reserved for the wicked who had been expelled from
the Bounteous Isle and filled with weeping and lamentation as
that was with bliss.

The Perlesvaus, like the Vulgate Queste, was evidently written
by an ecclesiastic and is strongly ascetic in its tendencies. Love ~
is, accordingly, totally excluded from its pages. Owing to his
abhorrence of adultery, the author, as we shall see, makes only
brief allusions to the loves of Lancelot and Guinevere and rejects
the whole traditional conclueion of the Arthurian story. It was,
indeed, this abhorrence, no doubt, that caused him, in the first
instance, to dethrone the newcomer, Galahad, the child of an adul-
terous connection, and restore Perceval to his original plece —
a Perceval, however, wholly chaste, as was not the case with Chré-
tien’s hero — at least, in the earlier phases of his career.

Apart from the ascetic, we observe a specifically ecclesiastical
bias in every part of this romance. Not only are the Grail and
the objects pertaining thereto here thoroughly Christianized,®° but
in the Grail chapel there are still other holy relics (p. 217), and
the hermits of the forest hold regular mass there three times a
week (p. 249), as they might have done in any other.church. Simi-
larly the ideal island realm*! whither Perceval and the Grail are

**° Two white-haired old men, who greeted Perceval there on his
first visit, show adoration on beholding Perceval’s shield and tell him
(p. 328) that they knew its former owner g oseph of Arimathea) even
before the crucifixion of Christ.

*° It is not definitely stated anywhere in the romance whether
the Grail was identified with the cup or the dish of the Last Supper.
Probably the author, himself, had formed no clear conception on .the
subject. P.54, the Grail receives the blood that flowed from the
lance; p. 88, Gawain sees the Christ child in the sacred vessel, and later
(p. 89) the vessel seems to have turned into the crucified Savior. The
lance is obviously the lance of the crucifixion, but the Grail sword is
here the weapon with which St. John was beheaded (pp. 74f. 86, 217).
Our Lord, it is said (pp. 216f.) loved the Grail chapel.

*? Heinzel, p. 172, has plausibly surmised that the conception of
the isles and the monastery was suggested by the legend of St. Brendan.

Refperia, Exgdnsungsrethe: 9. 2

Google

18 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

transferred at the end of the romance and where they are to abide
henceforth (pp. 330, 347) is plainly a monastic state, although
the realm is a spiritual one.

Furthermore, the hero of the romance is a propagator of the
Christian faith (New Law), even at the point of the sword (p. 217),
and Arthur and his knights exhibit an equal zeal in proselyti-
* gation (p. 3).

On the other hand, the Perlesvaus differs from the Queste,
inasmuch as a large proportion of the narrative is given up to epi-
sodes that are purely secular in character and that have no real
bearing upon the Grail quest. This is true especially of the portion
that follows upon the death of the Fisher King (pp. 176f.) —
that is to say, the second half of the romance. After that event
there was no valid reason why the story of the quest should not
have been concluded in relatively few pages with Perceval’s capture
of the Grail castle, but so brief an entertainment would have,
doubtless, disappointed the expectations of the author’s noble pa-
trons, so that he is obliged to extend his narrative by imitating
Chrétien and his continuators and adding to the Grail story, which
he had really exhausted, a series of virtually disconnected episodes,
many of which not only have no relation to the Grail, but no
relation even to the hero, himself. Thus an analysis that limits
itself to the Grail episodes of the Perlesvaise gives a false idea
of the work. Nevertheless, the writer evidently intended his ro-
mance as primarily a Grail romance, for not only is the quest
of the sacred vessel incomparably the most important element in
the work, but he begins it with the Grail and ends it with the
Grail, and it is the current interest in this theme, obviously, that
prompted him to the composition of his romance. Through the
prominence which he gives to the Grail theme, he attains a com-
parative unity of design that is wanting in Chrétien’s poem, as in
the other Arthurian romances of the biographical type.

From the point of view of style, the Perlesvaus is inferior
to the Queste, not only in sombre strength, but in unity of spirit
and design. A large proportion of its adventures are, in essentials,
repetitions of well-known motifs of the Arthurian romances. More-

Google

Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 19

over, these adventures are not merely of a secular nature, and hence
out of harmony with the deep myeticism of the central theme,
as has just been remarked, but they are insipid in themselves
and manifestly inserted simply to lengthen out the romance.

As a good illustration of the author’s want of judgment and
of the low level on which his imagination moves, one might cite
the conclusion which he has given to the Grail Quest; for the
Fisher King — the mystical figure who is the guardian of the
sacred vessel and whose health is bound up in so strange a manner
with the fateful questions — perishes here in war like any ordi-
nary monarch and the final achievement of the Grail adventure
contains no mystical elements, but consists merely of the capture
of a castle (the Grail castle) by force of arms — such an incident
as occurs in scores of other episodes in Arthurian romance, as
well as in the actual life of the age. The magical motsf seems
hardly worth inventing, if this was to be the end of the adventure.

Even worse is the writer’s réjection of the time-honored tra-
dition concerning the destruction of Arthur and his knights as
the consequence of Guinevere’s adultery — one of the finest tragical
themes in European literature. Probably, reprobating, as an ec-
clesiastic, the interest which this conception had generally inspired
and the dominant place which love had held in Arthurian tradition,
the author sets it aside altogether and represents Guinevere as dying
from grief whilst her consort’s glory is at its height — because
of the murder of her son, Lohot, by Kay.*?

** Cp. Perlesvaus, pp. 169f., 219, 221f. For a discussion of
Lohot in Arthurian romance (including the Perlesvaus passages) cp.
Bruce, “Arthuriana’”, RR, III, 179ff. (1912), and (less fully) G. Huet,
“Deux Personnages Arturiens”, Romania, XLII, 100ff. (1914). —
For the sources of the Perlesvaus, in general. cp. Part IV, below.

Google

Chapter XI.
Palamedes and Other Late Romances.

1. The Palamedes' is an offshoot of the prose Tristan, and, in
respect to date, it falls, apparentiy, between the composition of that
romance in its original form, and the cyclic redaction of the same.*
Owing to the insignificant réle which Palamedes plays in the work,
as it has survived to us, Paulin Paris* was led to conjecture that
the current title of the romance became attached to it through

* For the MSS. and early prints of this romance cp. Liseth, Le
roman en prose de Tristan, pp. 433ff. and Le Tristan et le Pala-
méde des manuscrits francais du British Museum, pp. 29ff. Of the
MSS. twelve are in the Bibliothéque Nationale, three in the Arsenal
Library (Paris) and two in the British Museum. Only two — MS.
350, Bibl. Nat. and Arsenal 3325 — go back to the thirteenth cen-
tury. For the early prints of the two divisions of Palamedes see note 5,
below. The work has not been printed since the sixteenth century,
so that we are dependent for our knowledge of it on Léseth’s analysis
in his Le roman en prose de Tristan, etc. pp. 436ff. For a briefer
analysis cp. Dunlop-Wilson, I, 188ff., 233 ff.

* The character, Palamedes, is drawn from the Tristan. So,
too, Meliadus and many others. The dependence of the romance on
the original prose TJ’ristan, indeed, is not open to question, although,
as G. Paris, Huth-Merlin, 1, pp. XXXVff., has shown, the epilogue
found in certain MSS. of the latter, which attribute the authorship to
Helie de Borron, is modelled after the prologue to Palamedes. This
epilogue, however, was plainly of late origin. — Tristan influences
in the Palamedes, as far as has been pointed out, are none of them
derived from the cyclic version of the former.

* Manuscrits Francois de la Bibliothéque du Roi, Il, 351
(Paris, 1838). He, consequently, always calls the romance Guiron
le Courtois, since Guiron is the most prominent character in the book,
and many scholars have followed him. In its prologue, however, the
work is expressly named Palamedes. Cp. Hucher, I, 159. —- Even
the MSS. do not preserve to us the romance in its original form; the
earlier prints give us merely a selection of episodes from the MSS.

Google

Palamedes 21

some misunderstanding. Even if this conjecture, however, is cor-
rect, the error is one of long standing, for in a letter of the year
1240, the German emperor, Frederick II, refers to it by that title.
In any event, at an early date, the work was divided into two
parts, known, respectively, as Meliadus de Leonnoys and Gutron
le Courtois, which in the sixteenth century were printed as sepa-
rate romances. The author of Palamedes is unknown, for the
ascription to a pretended Helie, which occurs in the prologue, is,
without doubt, fraudulent.¢

* In this letter, dated Feb. 5, the emperor thanks the Segreto of
Messina for sending him a book that had formerly belonged to one
Johannes Romanzorius. The passage which concerns us — quoted in
Ward’s Catalogue, I, 366 — reads: “De LIV quaternis scriptis de
libro Palamidis qui fuerunt quondam magistri Johannis Romanzori,
quos nobis per notarium Symonem de Petramajore mictere te scripsisti,
gratum ducimus et acceptum.”’

* Guiron le Courtois was published at Paris by A. Verard about
1501, Meliadus in 1528 by Galliot du Pre, and in 1532, by D. Janot.
P. Rajna, Le Fonti dell’ Orlando Furioso*, p. 61, mentions two
other editions of Guiron, one of them from about 1501, the other
from 1529. |

In the 1528 edition of Meltadus the prologue described above,
I, 486f., is attributed by the publisher to Rusticien de Pise, instead
of to Helie de Borron. The substitution is due to the fact, no doubt,
that this publisher found in his MS. the preamble of Rusticien’s com-
pilation inserted at the beginning of Guwiron and inferred from this
circumstance that the above-mentioned prologue was, in reality, by the
Italian writer. On these matters see, especially, Liseth, p. 435.

* Cp. G. Paris, Huth- Merlin, 1, pp. XXXHIff. The prologue
has been printed in full by Hucher, I, 156ff. Cp., too (more briefly),
P. Paris, Manuscrits Frangois de la Bibliothéque du Roi, I, 346¢t.
and Ward’s Catalogue, I, 365. On its relation to the 7ristan epilogue,
cp. I, p. 486, note 9, above. For a variant form of this prologue in a
Turin MS. cp. P. Rajna, Romania, IV, 264. As G. Paris, loc. ctt.,
note 3, remarks, the “Gasse li blons”, referred to in the prologue
vaguely as a writer of Arthurian romance, is, doubtless, Wace (Guace),
author of the Brut.

Rusticien de Pise has been frequently spoken of by scholars as
the author of Palamedes (Guiron le Courtois). Cp., for example,
Dunlop-Wilson, I, 188, 233, Griber, Grundriss, Band II, Abt. I,
p. 1008, Golther, Tristan und Isolde, p. 130. But, as we have seen,

Go ogle

22 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

According to the romance, the father of Palamedes is «a
Babylonian nobleman, named Esclabor, who, as part of a tri-
bute, is sent to the imperial court at Rome and wins the good
graces of the emperor there by saving his life, .but, in so doing,
excites the jealous ill-will of certain courtiers. These same cour-
tiers murder the emperor’s nephew and try to fix the blame of
the affair on the Babylonian. After the real murderer, however,
has been exposed and executed, Esclabor, with the emperor's con-
sent, sails for Logres (Britain), disembarks in Northumberland,
saves the life of Pellinor (Perceval’s father), king of that coun-
try, and goes on to Camelot. This was not long after the coro-
nation of Arthur. At this point we are regaled with the ad-
ventures of Pharamont, King of Gaul, an enemy of Arthur’s, who
comes to his court in disguise, displays his prowess there, and,
although finally recognized, continues to be treated with the great-
est courtesy. Furthermore, we are told here of the brilliant ex-
ploits of Meliadus (who gives his name to the first division of
the romance), King of Leonois and father of Tristan — especially,
how he had repulsed Uterpendragon’s army, when it was besieging
Pharamont. We learn here, likewise, of Meliadus’s rival, Le Che-
valier Sans Peur — one of the chief characters in the book —

Palamedes was already in existence by 1240 and Rusticien merely
incorporated the romance into his compilation. Cp. G. Paris, Manuel,
p. 110, and Liseth, pp. 432ff. Rusticien, himself, wrote the 7’ravels
of Marco Polo in 1298, so belonged to the next generation. In its
preamble and epilogue — cp. Léseth, pp. 433, 472, respectively —
his compilation is called Meliadus — but that is, no doubt, in con-
sequence of an error, like the one which has caused Malory’s compi-
lation to go under a name (Morte Darthur) that belongs properly to
only a part of the whole.

Having regard to the date of the composition of Palamedes
(Guiron le Courtois) — the second quarter of the thirteenth cen-
tury — we should na‘urally identify with Henry HI, the “noble roi
Henry d‘Engleterre’, who is referred to as the author's patron in the
prologue to that romance (Hucher I, 156). The reference, however,
is, doubtless, purely fictitious and imitated from the end of the Vulgate
Queste or opening of the Vulgate Mort Artu, where the King Henry
referred to is Henry II.

Go ogle

Palamedes 23

a knight from the border of Gaul and Little Britain, on whom
Uterpendragon had bestowed the kingdom of Estrangorre. In-
cidents of a supernatural character are entirely excluded from the
first division of Palamedes — otherwise, however, the adventures
are of the usual type. Especially prominent in this first division
are the abductions of noble ladies. Thus Meliadus, who is a skil-
ful poet and musician, like his more famous son, Tristan, woos
the queen of Scotland in lays, carries on a clandestine love-affair
with her at Arthur’s court and when the husband discovers her
adultery and tries to take her back to Scotland, waylays them
and bears her off to Leonois. In the war that follows this ab-
duction, Arthur joins the enemies of Meliadus and the abductor
was on the point of being made captive, when the hero of the
second part of the romance, Guiron le Courtois, intervenes and
saves the situation. After this the figure of Meliadus is secon-
dary in the story. |

In this first part of Palamedes, it was, of course, the ro-
mancer’s aim, in the manner which was general with the authors
of the cyclic romances, to exploit the interest of his public in
an older popular hero — Tristan — in favor of his own inventions,
by making the central character in his work the father of that
hero. The influence of the Tristan poems, whether directly or
indirectly (through the Mort Artu), is, moreover, manifest in de-
tail even in the meagre outline given above. Similarly, the author
introduces into his narrative the fathers of other famous charac-
ters of Arthurian romance — e. g., Lac (Ereo’s father), Pellinor
(here, as in the prose Tristan, represented as Perceval’s father)? —
or confers on older knights in his story names that had been al-
ready rendered illustrious in romance by heroes of the next gene-
ration — e. g. Perceval and Lamorat.®

In the creation of Guiron le Courtois,® the author of Pala-

* Cp. e. g. pp. 450, 444, respectively, e¢ passim.

* Cp. e. g. pp. 444, 448ff., respectively, et passim.

* Guiron enters the story at Liseth, p. 447. His name is pro-
bably derived from the hero, Goron (Gurun, etc.), of the famous lay.
Cp. Bédier’s edition of Thomas's 7ristan, I, 51 ff.

Google

24 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

medes set himself the praiseworthy task of drawing a type of
perfect fidelity in love and friendship. The hero demonstrates
his perfection in the latter relation by the self-restraint which |
he exhibits in his conduct towards the wife of his unworthy friend,
Danain of Maloaut (Maloanc). When she has been consigned to
his care by her husband, in the latter’s absence, he not only pro-
tects her against the violence of an importunate lover (Lac), but,
what was far more difficult, he was able to resist the temptations
of his own and her passion and preserve his loyalty to his friend.’
It is true that he was on the point of succumbing, when an ac-
cident drew his attention to the hilt of his sword and he read there
the fortifying inscription: ‘‘Loyalty surpasses everything; falsity
dishonors everything.’”’ Overcome with remorse at the thought of
the act of disloyalty which he had been about to commit, he plunges
his sword into his own bosom, but, fortunately, without fatal
effects. At this juncture, Danain, having heard a false report
concerning the relations of his friend and his wife, returns. Guiron
avows his part in the affair, whilst suppressing that of the lady,
and so receives the husband’s pardon. Unaffected, however, by
this example of loyal friendship Danain does not scruple some
time later to carry off Bloie, Guiron’s lady-love. In rescuing her,
Guiron again gives a proof of his generosity by dismissing his
false friend unharmed — a favor which the latter subsequently
requites in a more honorable fashion than might have been ex-
pected by delivering the former as well as Bloie from an enemy.

Guiron, on his father’s side, was a descendant of Clovis, King
of Gaul, through Febus, a famous warrior, who abandoned the
throne of that country to pursue the life of a knight-errant. On
his mother’s side, he belonged to the Grail family. The scene in
the cavern of the aged anchorites — Guiron’s grandfather, father,
and cousin (once king of Gaunes) — where these revelations con-
cerning the hero’s ancestry are made to Brehus sans Pitie is one
of the most striking in the book and serves to connect the hero
with the most hallowed traditions of Arthurian romance.

*° Pp. 4496.

Google

Palamedes 25

Dunlop has spoken of the earlier part of Guiron le Courtois
as ‘‘perhaps the finest of all the old fabulous histories of Britain.”
Certainly, it was one of the most popular of the Arthurian ro-
mances, being exceeded in this respect, if at all, only by the Trestan
and Lancelot. Like these romances, it supplied materials to the
genius of Boiardo'! and Ariosto'!® in the age of the Renaissance.
Indeed, it was Ariosto’s favorite among all the Arthurian ro-
- mances.!8§ Still further, it furnished the basis for a poem'* by
another Italian poet of the same period, Luigi Alamanni, which
was undertaken at the request of Francis I, King of France,
Even as late as the eighteenth century this expression of the ideals
of a society that had vanished centuries before still had the power
to captivate the fancy of Wieland and inspire him to one of the
most charming narrative efforts'® of the Romantic Revival in Ger-
many.'¢ .

‘! All the chief Old French Arthurian romances in prose were
accessible at the library of the princes of Este in Ferrara in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For the fifteenth century catalogues
of this library cp. Giulio Bertoni’s Nuovi Studi su Matteo Maria
Boiardo, ch. VII (Bologna, 1904), and for the indebtedness of Boiardo’s
LD’ Orlando Innamorato to Palamedes (Guiron le Courtots) see ibid.,
ch. VII.

** Cp. the Index to Pio Rajna’s Le Fonti dell’ Orlando Furioso*
(Firenze, 1900) under Palamedes.

* Cp. Rajna, pp. 60ff. First came Palamedes, next Tristan,
thirdly, longo intervallo, Lancelot.

* Gyrone il Cortese (1548). The author followed almost sla-
vishly the 1501 print (A. Verard). For everything pertaining to this
poem cp. H. Hauvette, Luigi Alamannt, pp. 319ff. (Paris, 1903).
For two early Italian prose translations of Gutrun le Courtots ep.
Rajna, p. 62. Only one has been printed (Firenze, 1855, edited by
F. Tassi). Melsadus was, also, translated into Italian prose and
published at Venice, 1558—1560.

** Geron der Adelige (1777), based on the version of the Old
French romance as given in Comte de Tressan’s Bibliothéque Uni-
verselle des Romans (1775—89).

- *© Another offshoot of the prose Tristan, which, since it was
composed in the fourteenth century, falls outside of the limit of the
present work is Isaie (Ysaye) le Triste. On the date of the romance,

Google

26 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

2. The Compilation of Rusticiano da Pisa.

The bulk of this vast compilation,’ in the fragmentary form
in which it has come down to us, is made up, in a large measure,
of the Palamedes, so that, as has already been stated above,}®
through misunderstandings, the compilation has appropriated to
itself even in the MSS. the name — Melsadus — of the first
division of that romance, and, vice versa, the Palamedes has been
often ascribed to the author of the compilation.

According to its preamble'® the work was compiled by Rusti-
cien de Pise (Rusticiano da Pisa) — designated here, also, “‘le
maistre’” — who “translated” it from a book of “my lord, Ed-
ward, King of England, at the time that he [ Edward I] went
overseas in the service of our Lord God to conquer the Holy Se-
pulchre.” It is further declared that the author is going to deal
especially with Lancelot and Tristan, since they were the most
distinguished knights of their age, and that he will tell a good
deal more about them than one will find in any other books.

The Rusticien de Pise, here mentioned, is, obviously, identi-
cal with the person of that name who, whilst a fellow-cap-
tive of Marco Polo’s at Genoa in 1298, wrote down in French

ep. Julius Zeidler, Der Prosaroman Ysaye le Triste, p.6 (Halle diss.
1901). Zeidler has, also, given a full analysis of this romance in
the Zs. f. rom. Ph. XXV, 175ff., 472ff., 641ff. (1901). For briefer
analyses cp. Dunlop-Wilson, I, 212ff., and Golther, 7'ristan und Isolde,
pp. 131ff., and for the critical literature pertaining to it cp. Grdber’s
Grundriss, Band II, Abt. I, p. 1010, note 2. On the early prints of
this romance see, especially, Romania, XXIII, 86. — Isaie le Triste
is the son of Tristan and Iseult of Cornwall. He is born shortly after
his mother has heard of the fatal wounding of Tristan by Marc. In
her sorrow she directs that her son shall be baptized with the above-
mentioned name, which is suggestive of the names of both parents,
and, at the same time, suits the sorrowful circumstances of his birth.
A few days later both Tristan and Iseult die. A hermit rears the
hero, whose adventures, of course, make up the romance.

*7 For an analysis of it cp. Léseth, pp. 423ff. For indications
regarding the MSS. and regarding the early prints of Meliadus and
Gutron that contain parts of the compilation, cp. tbid., p. 423, note 1.

** Pp. 21f., note 6. ** Ldeeth, pp. 423f.

Google

Rusticiano da Pisa 27

- the latter’s recital of his Oriental travels. Moreover, Edward I,
here referred to, went on his crusade in August, 1270, and did not
return to England until August, 1274, although he became king
on the death of his father, Henry III, in November, 1272. He
was in Palestine from May, 1271 to August, 1272. Now, there |
is no reason to question the accuracy of the statement which we
have just quoted or to doubt that Rusticien, writing certainly
after November, 1272, and most probably after August, 1274,
had before him one of the Arthurian compilations that had begun
to come into existence about the middle of the thirteenth cen-
tury.** He probably acquired it during Edward’s stay in Sicily
in 1271. To what degree, however, he may have modified his
original or how much he may have added to it either from other
works or from the resources of his own imagination must remain
a matter of conjecture. We know that his compilation, as it stands,
embraces, besides the Palamedes, considerable portions of the
Tristan? On the other hand, what is not taken over from these
- two romances, whether it be the production of Rusticien, him-
self, or another’s, is so destitute of originality that the question
of its provenience possesses little or no importance. Perhaps, the
episode of most interest in the work is the curious one with which
it opens*® — the adventures of Branor le Brun, the giant knight,
one hundred and twenty years old, who wishes to test the valor
of the younger generation and so appears at Arthur’s court with
a crowned damsel, beautiful and richly clad, challenges Arthur's

** We have no means of determining the downward limit of date.
One would judge, however, from the tone of the reference to Edward's
crusade that that expedition already belonged to a rather distant past.
The compilation, however, doubtless, antedates the Travels of Marco
Polo (1298).

"? The cyclic Tristan is, in reality, sach a compilation. MS. 112
(Bibl. Nat.) and Malory are fifteenth century specimens of the same
genre.

** Cp., for example, Loseth, p. 468. |

*? Luseth, pp. 424ff. The preamble states expressly that the
episode is taken from the “livre eaters — i.e King Ed-
ward’s book.

Go ogle

28 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

chief knights to enter into a contest with him for this damsel, and
vanquishes them all in succession — Gawain, Tristan, Lancelot,
along with the rest. By a singular fortune, this extravagant
episode is the only specimen of Arthurian romance, as far as we
know, that penetrated into Byzantine literature. There, in a ver-
sion of about the year 1300,?4 we find it presented in Greek verses
(306 lines), which are so strongly colored with Homeric phrasing
and imagery that the lines produce the impression of a bombastic
travesty of the style of the Iliad.

3. Les Prophécies de Merlin.

The prose work which bears the above name, although usu-
ally referred to as a romance,® is entitled only in part to that

** It was first edited (with a Latin translation) from the unique
Vatican MS. (about 1300), under the title of Poema graecum de
rebus gestis regis Arturi Tristan Lanceloti, Galbani Palamedis
aliorumque equitum Tabulae Rotundae, by F. H. von der Hagen,
Berlin, 1821. The text has since been reprinted by 1. its first editor
(Berlin, 1824), 2. F. Michel, in his edition of the Tristan poems,
Il, 267 ff. (1835), 3. L. G. Visscher, in his edition of the thirteenth
century Dutch romance, Ferguut, pp. 198ff. (Utrecht, 1836),
4. A. Ellissen: Nachtrag zum ersten Teil des Versuchs einer Poly-
lotte der europdischen Poesie (Leipzig, 1846), under the title,
O neéoBus inndtys. Ellissen gives the most correct text and his
introduction is very valuable. The poem is written in the so-called
political” verse (catalectic iambic tetrameter), the favorite metre of
Greek popular poetry. The first person to point out the true source
of the work wav L. K. Struve, in a review of von der Hagen’s edition,
Kritische Bibliothek. For an analysis of the poem see M. A. C. Gidel:
Etudes sur la littérature grecque moderne; imitations en grec de
nos romans de chevalerie depuis le XIIe siecle, pp. T9Hf. (Paris,
1866). The Greek poet has altered and shortened his French original.
See, still further, on this work Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzan-
tinischen Literatur’, pp. 866f. (Munich, 1897). Both Gidel and
Krumbacher, however, wrongly assign the French romance to the
twelfth century.
** So, for instance, in Miss L. A. Paton’s “Notes on Manuscripts
of the Prophecies de Merlin", PMLA, XXVIII, 121ff. (1913), which
is much the most instructive study of the book that has yet appeared.

Google

Prophécies de Merlin 29

designation, and, consequently, a summary description of its con-
tents will suffice for our purpose. It is not to be confounded with
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Libellus Merling (later incorporated in
his Historia as Book VII) or with the numerous pseudo-prophet-
ic writings of a political nature, ascribed to Merlin and imitated
from Geoffrey's Lebellus, that were issued during the Middle
Ages.26 According to the principal authority on the subject, ‘‘the
Prophecies consists of historical prophecies and teachings derived
from the stock of encyclopaedic material of the Middle Ages, deli-
vered by Merlin either in dialogue form or in writing to various
definitely named personages; among these prophecies and teach-
ings are interspersed anecdotes usually designed to set forth the
weaknesses of the clergy or to illustrate the supernatural gifts
of Merlin, and also romantic episodes recounting adventures of
Arthurian heroes — a unique production even in an age of extra-
ordinary compilations.” *7

The items that make up this strange medley differ very con-
siderably in the different MSS. and early prints.** This applies,
particularly, to the romantic episodes that are interspersed among

Cp., too, Ward’s Catalogue, I, 3711f. (1883), and Ireneo Sanesi, Storia
di Merlino, pp. LVI ff. (Biblioteca storica della letteratura, IU,
Bergamo, 1898). For MSS. and early prints see Paton, pp. 122 ff.
It was first printed in 1498 (Paris, A. Verard) as Vol. 3 of the Ro-
mans de Merlin — 80, too, likewise, in the sixteenth century. For
the fifteenth and sixteenth century Italian translations, cp. Paton, p. 124.
One of them has been edited by Sanesi, op. cit. Miss Paton cites,
also, as a Spanish version, Las Profecias del sabio Merlin, printed
by A. Bonilla y San Martin in the Libros de Caballerias Primera
Parte: Ciclo — arturico = ciclo carolingio, pp. 155—162 (Madrid,
1907). This, however, is very brief. She enumerates, pp. 122ff.,
twelve MSS. of the French work, the earliest of which seems to be-
long to the latter part of the thirteenth century.

Miss Paton in her study mentions that she is preparing an edition
of the Prophecies, but it has not yet appeared.

** For those of English origin, cp. Rupert Taylor, The Political
Prophecy in England (New York, 1911).

*7 Paton, op. cit., p. 122.

** Cp. Paton, pp. 125f.

Go ogle

30 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

the prophecies, although they have no real connection with the
latter. The only portions of the book that have been printed since
the sixteenth century are two such episodes — viz., the adventures
of Alexandre |’Orphelin (Alexander the Orphan) and the great
tournament of Galehaut (Lancelot’s friend). In both Palamedes
plays a part and both are, by origin, merely, late additions to
the prose T'ristan.® In the first— which alone possesses any interest
— we have a narrative of the adventures in fighting and in love of
Alexander, a nephew of King Marc of Cornwall, whose father
(Marc’s brother) had been killed by the latter and whose own
life that monarch, also, vainly endeavored to take through a series
of years.

The book purports to be a translation from a Latin original
by a certain Master Richard of Ireland at the command of the
Emperor F'rederick II (1215—1250). The first assertion is merely
the customary fiction which we meet with in virtually all the
prose romances and the declaration as to the author and the cir-
cumstances under which the work was written may be equally un-
trustworthy. Some color of credibility, however, is given to this
declaration by the fact that the prophecies which the compilation
contains, when they are not purely romantic, usually relate, for
the most part, to Italy and the Holy Land.*

** Sommer has edited them, from the British Museum MSS. Add.
25434 and Harley 1629, in his edition of Malory's Morte Darthur,
II, 295ff. (1891). The episodes in question are, also, to be found in
Malory, Book X, ch. 32—39 and ibid, ch. 40, etc., respectively.

* For Alexandre LOrphelin in Tristan and Palamedes MSS.,
cp. Liseth, pp. 186, 481.

Cp. Ward, p. 371. We know, too, that there was a Magister
Riccardus attached to Frederick's court. But many of the prophecies,
as Miss Paton observes, p. 128, would have been unpleasing to Fre-
derick. Whether we accept the above-mentioned declaration as
authentic or not, the work was probably composed in the second
quarter of the thirteenth century. The two episodes edited by Sommer
are, beyond question, dependent on the prose 7'ristan. With our present
information, however, one cannot say positively that they belonged to
the book in its original form.

Google

Chevalier du Papegau 31

4. Le Chevalier du Papegau.

This insignificant romance*® is to be numbered among the
later prose romances of the Arthurian cycle. The only MS. in
which it has survived belongs to the fifteenth century and there
is little likelihood that the date of its composition was much earlier.
- In the main, we have here a mere rehash of the old familiar motsfs
— the deliverance of distressed damsels, the slaying of giants
and dragons, etc. — and almost the only originality to which
the work may lay claim is through the occasional addition of
some new absurdity. Two such additions are, perhaps, especially
worth recording — namely, (1) the conception of the Fish-Knight,
a sea monster which is made up of a knight, his horse and equip-
ment — all of flesh, and all of one piece, so that when the shield,
for example, is pierced, it drips blood, (2) the dwarf’s son who
becomes a giant, because he is suckled in the forest by a kindly
unicorn. The hero of the romance is King Arthur himself —
here represented as going forth just after his coronation and having
the same sort of career as a knight-errant that in the other
Arthurian romances is ascribed to his knights. He acquires his
nickname (Knight of the Parrot) from a parrot which he cap-
tures from a knight and which, with a dwarf as its keeper, he
carries about with him in his travels. Both the parrot and the

** In the unique MS. 2154 (f. fr., Bibl. Nat.) it is entitled, in
a later hand, Le Conte du Papegaulz qui contient les premieres
Aventures qui auindrent au bon Roy Artus. G. Paris was the first
person to call attention to it — viz. in his analysis of the romance HLF,
XXX, 103ff. Since then it has been edited by Ferdinand Heuckenkamp
under the title of Le Chevalier du Papegau (Halle, 1896). In this
edition the text covers 90 pages. The editor (p. LVI) is inclined to
- assign the work to the fourteenth century. The author seems to have
drawn, in part, from a lost French metrical romance, which was used,
also, by the German poet, Wirnt von Grafenberg, in his Wigalois,
Cp. F. Saran, “Uber Wirnt von Grafenberg und den Wigalois’, PBB,
XXI, 253ff. (1896) — especially, pp. 336ff. — and Heuckenkamp,
pp. XXIXff. — The romance, doubtless, falls in a period later than
that with which the present treatise deals, but I include it here be-
cause G. Paris discusses it in his well-known work on the Arthurian
romances.

Google

32 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

dwarf are great cowards and there is some humor in the reproaches
of the bird, when the dwarf takes to his heels at the first scent
of danger, forgetting completely his charge, which, however, is fully
as much frightened as its keeper. In ordinary times, however, the
parrot regales Arthur in his wanderings with the most beautiful
songs that were ever heard.

(Oo ogle

Chapter XII.
Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanili

We may assign to the middle or second half of the thirteenth
century the above-named romances in Latin prose,! both of
which reveal, clearly a dependence on the prose T'ristan — more
particularly, in respect to nomenclature.* That they are the
productions of a single author — probably an Englishman —
is manifest, still further, from considerations of language, style
and narrative method.’ Just as in the later stages of the devel-

* Edited by J.D. Bruce in Ergdnzungsrethe, 2. Heft, of the
Johns Hopkins Press series, Hesperia (Gittingen and Baltimore, 1913).
This edition supersedes, in every respect, the same editor’s previous
editions of these romances in PMLA, XIII, 365ff. (1898) and XV,
327 ff. (1900). In the former place, the De Ortw was published; in
the latter the Historia Meriadoci, under the erroneous title, Vita
Meriadoci. Both romances are preserved in the Cottonian MS. of the
British Museum, Faustina B. VI, (early fourteenth century); the
Meriadoc is contained, also, in the Bodleian MS., Rawlinson — B. 149
(written about the year 1400).

* Leaving aside names of Welsh origin, the author of the Meriadoc,
imitating the opening episodes of the prose 77istan, draws the names
of his characters partly from Arthurian sources, partly from early
French history. It is particularly significant that both the French
and the Latin romance should, each, contain a king of Cornwall, named
Meroveus and a subject of Meroveus named Sadoc. These names, of
course, do not occur in the authentic history of Cornwall. On the
name, Sadoc, cp. I, 492, note 26, above.

Similarly the names Nabor and Buzafarnan (corruption of Nabu-
zardan) in the De Ortu are derived from the prose Tristan.

On these questions of nomenclature, cp. Bruce, pp. XXIff. —
H. Suchier, Literarisches Zentralblatt for 1898, col. 980, derives the
name Egesarius (alternative name of the pagan chieftain, Buzarfarnan,
from the Eishere of the Monk of St. Gall (ninth century). Eishere was
a giant who spitted his foes on a spear, like little birds.

* Cp. Bruce’s edition, pp. VIIff. The Welsh mountains give the
background of the Meriadoc, and the distinctive names in this romance

Hefperia, Exgdngsungsrethe : 9. 8

Go ogle

34 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

opment of the Charlemagne epic, the theme of the Chanson de
Roland acquires standing in learned circles and receives at the
hands of a cleric, in the poem, Carmen de Proditione, a Latin
dress, so here in the decline of Arthurian romance we find certain
themes of this species- of literature passing, likewise, into similar
hands. In both cases, very likely, the authors were inspired with
the mistaken notion that, by clothing these subjects in a learned
language, they would impart to them a dignity and permanence
which they could not attain in the vernacular. In any event, the
author of the two Arthurian fictions is intoxicated with the eru-
berance of his own rhetoric and is quite unaware of the fact that the
main interest of his compositions is that they preserve for us in
translation the materials of romances in the vernacular which other-
wise would have perished. It must be said, too, that they possess

are Welsh (cp. Bruce, p. XXVIII, note 1) but, as Ward, Catalogue,
I, 375, points out, the author could not have been a Welshman, since
he says that Snowdon is the Welsh name of the famous mountain.
As a matter of fact, in Welsh it is called Eryri. On the other hand,
the following circumstances favor the supposition that the work origi-
nated in Great Britain: 1. The only extant MSS. are in England.
2. The word chiula, for ship, which is here employed (De Ortu,
p. 74), occurs apparently only in writings of British origin.

In the sixteenth century John Bale, Index Britanniae Scriptorum,
pp. 384f. (edited by R. L. Poole and Mary Bateson as Part IX of the
Anecdota Oxontensia: Mediaeval and Modern Series, Oxford, 1902),
ascribed these romances to Robertus de Monte or Robert de Torigni,
as he is variously called — the well-known chronicler and abbot of
Mont Saint Michel in Normandy from 1154 to 1186. An attempt to
establish the correctness of this ascription was made by Miss M. S.
Morriss in her paper, “The authorship of the De Ortu Waluuant
and the Historia Meriadoci”’, PMLA, XXIU, 599ff. (1908). The
difference of language, style, etc. and the dependence of the Latin
romances on French prose romances of the thirteenth centary — Tristan
and Lancelot, in particular — prove, however, that her thesis is
untenable. Cp. Bruce, op. ctt., pp. Xff. It is a pity that so erroneous
an idea — for, in that case, these Latin romances would be the
earliest of all extant Arthurian romances — should have found ac-
ceptance in a standard work, like the Suchier-Birch-Hirschfeld, Ge-
schichte der franzésischen Literatur*, I, 112 (Leipzig, 1918).

Go ogle

Lattin Romances 35

no little value as literary curiosities, for they are the only Ar-
thurian romances, properly speaking, in Latin that have descended
to modern times. Arthur and Gorlagon® is a striking Welsh
folk-tale in Latin form, but it does not fall in the category of
the romances. |

In thé Historta Meriadoci, Meriadoc and his sister, Orwen,
are the children of Caradoc, king of Wales, who is murdered on a
hunt by his brother, Griffith. The latter succeeds his brother and
orders them to be secretly taken to the forest of Arglud and hanged
there. Out of compassion, however, the executioners fail to carry out
their wicked master’s commands, and the children finally get into
the hands of Ivor, the king’s huntsman, and his wife, Morwen, both
favorable to the royal orphans. Whilst they are all hiding in
the forest, Urien, king of Scotland, who happens to be passing
that way, carries off Orwen and marries her, whilst Kay, Arthur's
seneschal, conveys Meriadoc to his sovereign’s court. Later,
Morwen and Ivor, however, rejoin Orwen and Meriadoc, respect-
ively. Arthur and Urien besiege Griffith at Mount Snowdon,
capture him and slay him, and make Meriadoc king in his place.
The young prince, however, turns over his kingdom to Urien and
himself goes forth in search of adventure. He first aids the Em-
peror of Germany in his war with Gundebald ‘King of the land
from which no one returns,’* who had abducted the emperor’s
only daughter. In pursuit of the enemy he and his followers
cross a river and enter a vast forest, haunted by wild beasts and

* Cp. Bruce, p. XXXV, note 3.

* Edited by G. L. Kittredge, [Harvard] Studies and Notes in
Philology and Interature, VIII, 149ff. (1903). It is, primarily, a
werewolf tale, affiliated with Btsclavret and Melton, but contains,
besides, other folk-tale elements. Kittredge’s edition contains an ela-
borate study of the sources. There is only one known MS. of the
work — the Bodleian MS. Rawlinson B. 149 (about 1400) which, as
we have seen, also, includes the Mertadoc. The date of composition

is undetermined.

* This motif comes to our aathor, ultimately, from Chrétien's
Lancelot, L. 645, but it is here thoroughly rationalized, since Gunde-
bald’s stronghold is represented (p. 43) as an island in the Rhine

Cp., on these matters, Bruce, pp. XXXIVf. ,
s

Google

36 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

phantasms — a sort of Otherworld. Here he has a series of fan-
tastic adventures — mainly in splendid fairy castles with super-
natural inhabitants. In the end, by a stratagem, he gets into
communication with the imprisoned princess and, with her assis-
tance, overcomes Gundebald and liberates her. The Emperor now
proves faithless to his promises and wishes his daughter to wed
the King of Gaul in order to settle a war with the latter. On
learning, however, of the princese’s condition in consequence of her
secret relations with Meriadoc, the king declines the honor, and,
assisted by his rival, renews the war, in which Meriadoc soon slays
the Emperor. Nevertheless, he later marries the princess. Moreover,
the King of Gaul establishes our hero next to himself in authority in
his dominions and the latter enjoys a long and prosperous life.

According to the second of these romances, Gawain was the
offspring of a secret love-affair between Loth, nephew of the King
of Norway, and Anna, daughter of Uther Pendragon, during the
former’s sojourn as a hostage at the British court. To save the
princess's reputation, as soon as the child is born, it 1s committed
to some foreign merchants, along with certain valuables, which
include, tzter alia, the means of its future identification. On
disembarking near Narbonne, after their voyage from Britain, the
merchants unwarily leave their ship in charge of a boy and go off
to the city. The boy forthwith falls asleep and a neighboring
fisherman, Viamundus, uses the opportunity to steal the child and
the valuables. He brings up the boy as his adopted son, and,
after seven years, goes to Rome with his ill-gotten wealth, and,
pretending to be of a noble Roman family, receives from the
Emperor the former palace of Scipio Africanus as his dwelling
and becomes a leading citizen of Rome. Only when he is on his
death-bed does he confess to the Emperor and the Pope Sulpicius
his true history and beg them to take charge of the child and
educate him for knighthood. The Emperor accepts the care of
the boy and knights him when he is fifteen years old. Up to that
time the dying injunction of Viamundus had been obeyed and
no definite name had .been conferred upon the hero, so that he
was known merely as the “Boy Without a Name.‘‘ On the day,

Google

Latsen Romances 37

however, that he was knighted, he appeared wearing a surcoat —
the first person ever to do so — and so won the nickname by
which he is known up to the closing scenes of the romance, viz.
“The Knight of the Surcoat.”

Soon after this Gawain sails for Jerusalem in order to assist
the Christians there in their war with the Persians. On the way
out, however, the expedition stops at an island in the Aegean
Sea, whose pagan inhabitants, as Gawain and his companions had
ascertained, were planning to intercept the Roman fleet. In the
course of this episode, we have, what is unique in Arthurian ro-
mance, a description of a naval engagement — moreover, an ac-
count of the terrible effect of Greek fire, together with a pre-
scription for its preparation. It is, perhaps, needless to say that
the Romans were victorious in this affair and that Gawain led all
the rest in valor. Similarly, on his arrival at Jerusalem, as the
champion of the Christians, in a duel which, according to agree-
ment, was to determine the issues between the opposing hosts,
he slew the Persian champion and delivered the city.

After receiving appropriate honors on his return to Rome,
Gawain resolved to seek further adventures at Arthur’s court. On
his departure the Emperor turns over to him the documents which
are to identify him, but commands him not to look at them until
he has seen the British king. On the night before our hero
reaches Caerleon, Arthur’s wife, here called Gwendolen,’ foretells
that a knight who is superior to the king, himself, is on the point
of arriving. Whilst the queen is asleep, Arthur goes forth to test,
according to his custom, the strength and skill of strange knights.
He happens to encounter Gawain in the night and suffers a humi-
hating overthrow at his hands. In a later affair before Maidens’
Castle in North Britain the latter subjects the king to an additional
humiliation, but all soon ends happily, when the true story of the
young knight’s birth is brought to light and he is acknowledged
by his parents to be their son.

* The name is probably taken from Geoffrey's Vita Merlini,
where Merlin’s lady-love is so called.

Google

38 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

The discovery of the Enfances Gauvain,® a fragmentary
poem on Gawain’s youth, a few years ago, has confirmed the
conjecture, which had been already advanced,® that the De Ortu
was based on a lost romance in that language. Both of these ro-
mances, it would seem, go back to still a third French romance,
which is no longer known to exist.!° The distinctive feature of
the lost romance, which has been inherited by its descendants,
is the rationalized adaptation to Gawain of the legend of Pope
Gregory, who was set adrift on the sea in a cask, was picked up
by fishermen, and brought up by an abbot, who gave him his
own name. The author has also appropriated ideas from Geof-
frey’s Historia and from various French romances, some of them
lost, and he has effected the union of these disparate elements
with no little skill.

The sources of the Historia Meriddoci are of the same gene-
ral description as those of the De Ortu — only, in this case, more
plainly than the other, Arthurian names have been used to give
éclat to stories that, originally, had no real connection with Ar-
thurian tradition." The pseudo-historical account of Meriadoc’s
youth is as purely fictitious as that of his adventures in the fairy
forest, and, indeed, seems to be a mere variant of the Havelok story.!?

* Two fragments were discovered. and edited by Paul Meyer,
Romania, XXXIX, 1ff. (1910). The MS. (Bibl. Nat.) belongs to the
middle of the thirteenth century and the poem, itself, probably, to the
beginning of the century. H. Gelzer has shown, “Zu den Enfances
Gauvain’, Zs. f. rom. Ph. XXXVIII, 614 (1914), that, contrary to
Meyer, no third fragment ever existed.

* In my first edition of the romance.

*° Cp. Bruce, pp. XLV#f. On its connection with the Gregory
legend and with the cognate episodes of the Perlesvaus, pp. 252f.
and Huth-Merlin, I, 204ff. cp. ibid. pp. XXXVf. — The motive of
incest which is so important in the Gregory legend is here omitted,
although utilized, as we have seen, in the Huth-Merlin passage and
in the Lancelot, V, 284{., with reference to Mordred.

‘* For the sources of the Meriadoc, cp. Bruce, pp. XXIV ft.

'* Cp. Bruce, p. XXX — also, Max Deutschbein, Studien zur
Sagengeschichte Englands, Teil I, Die Wikingersagen, pp. 134¢t.
(Cdthen, 1906).

Go ogle

Chapter XIII.

The Influence of the prose Romances
on subsequent Literature.

The subject which is indicated in the above heading is too
large a one to dilate upon here and would require, indeed, a sepa-
rate volume for adequate treatment... We cannot conclude our
long discussion of the prose-romances, however, without adding
a brief note on the momentous influence of these romances upon
the development of narrative literature throughout Europe in later
ages — more especially, during the Renaissance.

As has been already remarked above, long before the end
of the Middle Acss the prose romances had completely eclipsed
the metrical romances in popularity, and it was not until the Ro-
mantic Revival in the latter part of the eighteenth century that
interest in the latter began to be reawakened. On the other hand,
during the period of the Renaissance, the prose romances con-
tinued to enjoy an undiminished favor with the readers of the
time, as is sufficiently attested by the numerous editions, which
have been recorded in the notes above.? The Lancelot, Tristan,
and the other prose romances determined, indeed, the character
of subsequent prose fiction of the larger sort in France far on into
the sixteenth century, and, to a certain degree, indirectly, beyond.

1 F. Lot, Lancelot, pp. 280ff., has given a chapter to the subject,
as far as the Vulgate cycle is concerned.

* On this subject, see, too, A. Tilley, “Les romans de chevalerie
en prose”, Revue Gu seiziéme stécle, VI, 45ff. (1919). It appears
from this article, however, that the popularity of the Arthurian ro-
mances in the Renaissance was confined to the noble and bourgeois
classes. On the other hand, the prose versions of the chansons de
geste were much more popular, generally speaking, and, accordingly,
were much more frequently reprinted. Tilley gives the dates of the
first editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth century prints of the various
prose romances, but only of the first.

Go ogle

40 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Many a Frenchman, doubtless, agreed with Clément Marot® that
Lancelot was a ‘‘trés-plaisant menteur’’. Still more important,
however, was the influence which these romances exercised outside
of France. |

First in Italy: The French prose romances, — more parti-
cularly, the Lancelot, Tristen and Guiron le Courtois — were the
direct models of Boiardo’s great romance-epic in verse, the Or-
lando Innamorato* (1486 et seqg.). Moreover, as is well-known,
Ariosto’s still more famous Orlando Furtoso (first edition, 1516) is
@& mere continuation of Boiardo and in the features which most
concern us here, the incoherence, the abrupt transitions, the inter-
weaving of a whole series of narratives that have no. vital con-
nection with one another, it is similar to his predecessor's poem.
In its turn, the Orlando Furioso served as a model for Spenser’s
Faerie Queene, for it was the English poet’s ambition, as we
know from Gabriel -Harvey, even to ‘‘overgo’”’ the excellence of
his great Italian original. Hence those features of Spenser’s narra-
tive which have proved so often a stumbling-blook to the modern
reader are due, in the last analysis, to the tradition which was
established by the Lancelot and its companion-romances.

Hardly less fateful than the relation of Boiardo and Ariosto
to the prose romances in the history of Italian literature was
Luigi Alamanni’s innovation — the most audacious, perhaps, in
European literature — in his Avarchide (1570), of Arthurizing
the Iliad. |

Although the poet retains the main outlines of the Homeric
epic, despite the change in the name of the besieged city,* we

* Elégie, XVI. |

* The main characters were drawn from the Charlemagne cycle,
but the whole spirit of the work is that of the Arthurian romances.
Cp. A. Gaspary, Geschichte der Italtenischen [iteratur, U, 281 ff.
(Berlin, 1888).

* On the Avarchide and its sources and on Tasso’s debt to
Alamanni, cp., especially, H. Hauvette, Luigi Alamanni, pp. 357 ft.
(Paris, 1903). ,

* In Alamanni the city is called Avarco — Latin Avaricum
(i.e. modern Bourges). The action is laid about 500, A. D.

Go ogle

Influence of Prose Romances 41

have here the heroes’ of the Arthurian romances — Lancelot,
Tristan, and the rest — stalking in the shoes of Achilles, Ajax,
etc. It was on the model of the Avarchéde that a few years later,
Torquato Tasso, in his Gerusalemme Liberata (1581), offered to
the world a far happier combination of classical and romantic
elements.

Secondly, in Spain: The influence of the prose romances is
also of the first importance in the literature of Spain and Portu-
gal. The immense body of romances of chivalry which was pro-
duced in the Iberian peninsula from the thirteenth to the six-
teenth century — from the Amadis de Gaula’ (late thirteenth)
to the Espejo de Principes y Caballeros (1580) — simply con-
tinues the traditaon of the French romances, and it is undeniable
that Don Qutzote (Part I, 1605), itself, though one of its ob-
jects was the extinction of the genre, inherits its narrative tech-
nique, in a large measure, from these same French romances. In
any event, the Spanish romances of chivalry and their offspring,
the pastoral romances, like Cervantes’ Galatea (1585) and the Diana
(about 1588) of Montemayor, exerted an influence on contemporary
France and England, and even later. Apart from translations
the latter especially influenced the huge French romances of the
seventeenth century — the productions of La Calprenéde, Scudéry,
and others, which found their echo in England — more particularly,
in the Heroic Drama of the Age of the Restoration.®

" For the immense indebtedness of the Amadis to the Lancelot,
seo Miss G. S. Williams, The Amadis Question, in the Revue
Hispanique, XXI.

~* Comprehensive studies on the influence of the prose romances
on the literature of the Renaissance are still wanting. I have men-
tioned in the text the great outstanding examples of this influence.
It penetrated, however, even the Italian novelle. Three such instances
have been recently noted (not all, for the first time, to be sure) by
E. Winkler, in the second section — “Die Quellen der Lanzelot-
Erzihlungen der Cento Novelle Antiche’ — of his article “Arturiana’,
Zs. f. rom. Ph., XLI, 193ff. (1921). In the first section of the
article, the author points out an imitation of the storm-making spring
of Chrétien’s Yvoain in King René of Anjou’s De la Queste de la
tres Doulce Merci au Cuer d’Amours espris (1457).

Google

Original from

Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

PART IV.

DISCUSSIONS.

Google

Original from

Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Chapter L
Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon).

The date of the battle of Badon Hill is of prime importance
for fixing the date of the historical Arthur, and hence of the
legends that are connected with his name. Gildas, to whom we
owe the first mention of the battle, says, ch. 26, in regard to
the wars between the Saxons and the Britons after the time of
the British leader, Ambrosius Aurelianus:

““Ex eo tempore nunc cives, nunc hostes, vincebant, ut in
ista gente experiretur dominus solito more praesentem Israelem,
utrum diligat eum an non; usque ad annum obsessionis Badonici
montis, novissimaeque ferme de furciferis non minimae stragis,
quique quadragesimus quartus, ut novi, orditur annus, mense iam
uno emenso, qui et meae nativitatis est.” |

These words have been variously interpreted. Some modern
scholars have followed Bede, Historia Ecclestastica, Book I, ch. 16,
in taking the ambiguous passage to mean that the battle of Badon
Hill was fought in the year of the author’s birth, forty-four years
after the coming of the Saxons. Cp., for example, A. de la Bor-
derie, Revue Celtique, VI, 1ff. (1885), and E. Windisch, Das
keltische Britannien bis zu Katser Arthur, p. 39 (1912). On
the other hand, a more likely interpretation is that Gildas means
that Mount Badon was fought forty-four years before the time
when the author penned this passage (and in the year of his nati-
vity). This is the interpretation, for instance, of H. Zimmer,
Nennius Vindicatus, p. 286 (1913), Mommeen, in his edition of
Gildas, III, 8 (1896), C. Plummer, edition of Bede, II, 31 (Ox-
ford, 1896), and Hugh Williams, p. 63, note 1, of his edition of
Gildas (London, 1899—1901) in the Cymmrodorion Record Series,
No. 3. Mommsen, however, emends the text and substitutes for
“ut novi’ “est ab eo qui’, whilst Williams merely puts “ut

Google

46 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

novi” in brackets. Inasmuch as, according to the Annales Cam-
briae, Gildas died in 570 and Maglocunus, one of the British
princes whom he inveighs against in the De Excidio as still living,
died in 547, it is probavle that Gildas’s birth, and hence the battle
of Badon Hill, fell in the first years of the sixth century.

On the other hand, if Gildas meant that the battle was fought
forty-four years after the coming of the Saxons, it would not be
possible to fix the date with quite the same certainty; for the
date of this coming is in dispute. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica,
Book I, ch. 15, V, ch. 24, who is followed by the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicles, places it in, or about, the year 449 A.D.1 But Bede’s
dating has no genuine authority; for, as R. Thurneysen has shown
in his article, “Wann sind die Germanen nach England gekom-
men ?’’, Englische Studien, XXII, 174f. (1895), the Anglo-Saxon
historian arrives at this date by merely combining the statement
of some continental source that the Roman rule in Britain ended
in 409 with the statement of the lost Annales Romanorum (cited
by Nennius, ch. 10, and apparently of Irish origin) that the
Saxons invaded Britain forty years after the Roman rule termi-
nated, although this latter source, doubtless, like Nennius, who
is dependent on it, dated the end of the Roman power with the
death of Maximus in 388. The date in Nennius thus indicated
for the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon conquest (i. e. the landing
of certain Anglo-Saxon bands at the invitation of a British king
to aid him in his wars against the Picts and the Irish), viz. 428,
is, doubtless, correct, since the Annales Romanorum to which he
refers was of a considerably earlier time. Cp. Thurneysen, Zs.
f. d. Ph., XXVIII, 92f. (1896), (review of Zimmer’s Nenntus
Vindicatus) and Zs. f. celt. Ph., I, 166f. (1896), (review of
Mommeen’s edition of Gildas and Nennius). The contemporary
Chronica Gallica? (p. 660), which was compiled before 452, re-

* Elsewhere in Bede's history (e. g. I, 23, V, 23) other dates
(447 or 448) are implied, and in his Chronica, 452. See Williams’
edition of Gildas, p. 53, note.

* Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum Antiquis-

Google

Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon) 47

cords that Britain passed under Saxon rule in 441 or 442.3 This
record is, no doubt, accurate, as applied to the part of Britain
with which the author would be naturally best acquainted, namely,
the southeastern coast. Taken in this sense, the statement would
harmonize well enough with 428, as the date of the first perma-
nent landing of the Anglo-Saxon tribes. On this subject com-
pare, besides, Thurneysen’s articles already cited. Of less value
is the discussion of these matters by N. J. Krom in his Leiden
thesis: De populis Germanis antiquo tempore patriam nostram in-
colentibus Anglosaxonumque migrationibus, pp. 115ff. (Leiden,
1908). Strange to say, Krom seems entirely ignorant of Thur-
neysen’s article in Englische Studien, XXII.

The enemies against whom the Britons appealed to Aetius
for help in the letter of 446 A.D. were, no doubt, really the Anglo-
Saxon invaders, and not the Picts and Scots, as Gildas (ch. 20)
thought. Cp. Thurneysen, Englische Studien, XXII, 177.

If we take 428, then, as the date of the arrival of the Anglo-
Saxons in Britain, the battle of Badon Hill was fought in 472
or 478. As I have stated above, however, the alternative inter-
pretation of the passage in Gildas is preferable, and the real date
of the battle probably falls in the first four or five years of the
sixth century.®

simorum, Tomus LX. Chronicorum Minorum Saec. IV, V, VI,
VII. Vol. 1, edited by Theodor Mommsen, Berlin, 1892.

* V. H. Friedel, in his article, “L’arrivée des Saxons en Angleterre
d’aprés le texte de Chartres et l'Historia Britonum’, Foerster-Fest-
gabe, pp. 280ff. (1901), argues for the date 418/419, but Thurneysen’s
argument is to me the most satisfactory on the subject. — The
worthlessness of the traditional dates in relation to the Anglo-Saxon
conquest of England has been recently emphasized by F. Lot in his
valuable article, “Les migrations saxonnes en Gaule et en Grande-
Bretagne du III® au V® siécle”, Revue Historique, vol. 119, pp. 1ff.
(1915).

“ This correction of Gildas is much more acceptable than An-
scombe’s Zs. f. celt..Ph., VH, 435 (1907). He thinks that the “Bri-
tanni” who addressed the appeal to Aetius were really Armorican
Britons’.

* A. Anscombe, “Date of the First Settlement of the Saxons in

Google

48 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Turning now from the question of the date of the battle of
Badon Hill to that of the place where it was fought, we are con-
fronted with a hopeless uncertainty. It has been customary to
identify the site of the battle with Bath,’ and in Nennius (ch. 68)
there is, indeed, a mention of “balnea Badonis”’, which seems to
mean the battle at the city of Bath; but the old Roman Aquae Solis
could only have received the Anglo-Saxon name of ‘‘Bath”’ after
the battle of Deorham (a few miles distant) in 577, through which
the Anglo-Saxons for the first time got possession of the place and
surrounding district — hence, the identification is obviously base-
less. The same thing may be said of the identification of Badon
Hill with Badbury in Dorset;* for, as W. H. Stevenson has pointed
out,® the latter derives its name from some Anglo-Saxon, the

Britain”, Zs. f. celt. Ph., I, 492ff. (1901), VI, 339ff., XII, 419ff.,
tries to reconcile the two dates. Bede’s 449, he says, really means
450, for in those ages, he contends, chroniclers often designated the
year by the sum of years, completed up to date. Moreover, this 450
was the annuary number, not according to the orthodox (Dionysian)
system of computation, but according to that which is called the
system secundum evangelicam veritatem by the person with whom
it is commonly identified, Marianus Scotus (11th century), which would
involve a retardation of 22 years. He tries to show by examples that
Marianus’s system of computation was really in use before Bede's time.
E. W. B. Nicholson, ibtd., VI, 439ff., VI, 121ff., replying to An-
scombe, shows that the instances with which he supports these conten-
tions are merely chroniclers’ blunders. Besides, Thurneysen, as we
have seen above, explains satisfactorily Bede's date, 449. Anscombe
has written still further on the subject in Eriu, I, 117ff. (1907).

* The best brief summary of the discussion as to both place and
date is that of W. H. Stevenson in The English Historical Review,
XVII, 632 ff. (Oct. 1902). The date given by the Annales Cambriae,
516, is now accepted by no one. For further discussion of the date
of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, see H. M. Chadwick, The Origin of the
English Nation, 35ff. (Cambridge, 1907). |

* The most elaborate defence of this view is E. W. B. Nicholson's,
in his articles, “Mons Badonicus and Geoffrey of Monmouth”, The
Academy, March 14 (pp. 220ff.) and April 11 (pp. 305ff.), 1896..

* Proposed by E. Guest, Origines Celticae, II, 189 (London,
1883), and accepted by the historians, Freeman, J. R. Green, etc.

° English Historical Review, XVII, 634 (1902).

Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon) 49

Anglo-Saxon form, ‘‘Baddanbyrig’’, being, of course, a combi-
nation of the genitive form of “‘Badda” (a personal name) with
the Anglo-Saxon word for ‘“‘town’’. Now, no town in Dorset could
have received an Anglo-Saxon name until the conquest of that
part of England — that is to say, until at least as late as the
above-mentioned battle of Deorham.

For different reasons the iden tifieation with Acornbury
(Aconbury), in Herefordshire proposed by A. Anscombe, Zs. f.
celt. Ph., V, 116 (1905), is, likewise, to be rejected. His line
of argument is that Badonicus is really a mere scribal corruption
of an hypothetical Hagonis, Mons Hagonis being the Latin equi-
valent of Mynydd Agned (= Hill in the land of Agon or Acon),
which is in some MSS. of Nennius the name of the ele-
venth in the list of Arthur’s twelve battles. The scribe of
the archetype of these MSS., according to this view, did not re-
cognize the identity of Mynydd Agned with Mons Badonicus,
so made two battles out of one. The corruption, Anscombe thinks,
began in the MSS. of Gildas, passed thence into MSS. of Bede,
and from Bede into Nennius. All this, however, is too purely
speculative for acceptance. One can, at most, only admit that
Anscombe’s identifications of the scenes of Arthur's eleven other
battles with places in Upper Britain, in this same article,!° if

© “Tocal Names in the ‘Arthuriana’ in the Historia Brittonum’,
Z. f. celt. Ph., V, 103ff. (1905).

"* It is, perhaps, advisable to mention that Anscombe, and, later,
A. W. Wade-Evans, have attacked, although futilely, the authenticity
of Gildas’s De Excidio Britanniae. For the argument of the former
on the subject, cp. his articles in The Academy, Sept. 14, 28, Oct. 5,
19, Nov. 16, 1895. He bases his criticism on supposed inconsistencies
of statements in the work with sixth century conditions, 6. g. Gildas's
allusion, ch. 24, to the Saxons having reached already the west coast
of Britain. A raid, however, extending to that coast is not unlikely
even in the first half of the sixth century. See the excellent replies
to Anscombe by W. H. Stevenson, tbid., Oct. 26, Dec. 14, 1895 —
also, E. W. B. Nicholson, Nov. 2. Stevenson lays stress on our meagre
knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon conquest. Besides; why should any one
between 640 and 641 (limits of the date of the De Excidio according
to Anscombe, ibid., Oct. 5, 1895) be interested in ane so bitterly

Hefperia, Ergdnsungsteike: 9.

Google

50 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

correct, would go to prove that Badon Hill, too, was in that part
of the island."

against British princes of the fifth and sixth centuries? Wade-Evans’s
main articles on the subject appeared in The Celtic Review, I, 289 ft.
(1905), Il, 46ff., 126ff. (1905), IX, 35ff. (1913), 314ff. (1914), x,
215ff. (1915), 322ff. (1916). — See also his “The Chronology of
Arthur”, Y Cymmrodor, XXII, 125ff. (1910). For a reply to the
earlier articles of this long series, see E. W. B. Nicholson, The Celtic
Review, I, 369 ff. (1906). This answers pretty well the whole series;
for, in the main, the argument is merely repeated. Wade-Evans’s final
result (X, 329f.), is that Mount Badon (Badon Hill) was fought in 665
and the De Excidio Britaniae written in 708. The only real battle
of Mount Badon, he argues, was that which is entered as the second
of the name in the Annales Cambriae under the year CCXXI (i. e.
665 or 666 A. D.). This is the battle mentioned in Gildas (ch. 23)
— “Badonici Montis’”. The battle of this name, entered under the
year LXXII (i.e. 516 or 517 A.D.) in the Annales Cambriae, ac-
cording to Wade-Evans, never occurred, the name being adopted from
Gildas, or ‘“pseudo-Gildas”, as Wade-Evans calls the author of the
De Ezxcidio. Arthur really flourished and died, he maintains, in the
latter part of the fifth century.

Most of Wade-Evans's argument hinges on his interpretation of
the prophecy which Gildas (ch. 23) mentions as firmly relied on by
the Saxons, when they invaded Britain, viz. that they should occupy
the country for three hundred years, and that for one hundred and
fifty years of this period they should make frequent devastations (“sae-
pius devastaret’”) in it. Wade-Evans assumes that this is a prophecy
after the event. Gildas (ch. 26) represents that active hostilities ceased
after the battle of Mount Badon (the year of Gildas’s own birth) and
that forty-three years of peace had already passed at the time that.
he was writing. Consequently, Wade-Evans concludes that the De
Excidio was written 150 plus 43 years after the Anglo-Saxon invasion
began. But Gildas explicitly says that the prophecy in question was
a Saxon prophecy and he neither expresses nor implies any belief in
it, himself. Wade-Evans’s conclusion, therefore, is unwarranted. So,
too, I may add, is his assertion that Gildas implies a long interval
between the appeal to Aetius and the landing of the Anglo-Saxons.

Google

Chapter II.
Brutus, Eponymus of the Britons. .

Brutus, as the eponymus of the Britons, Geoffrey found al-
ready in Nennius, ch. 18 (Mommsen’s edition, p. 161). For the
manner in which this notion grew up with the growth of the
Historia Brittonum see, especially, G. Heeger: Uber die Trojaner-
sage der Britten, 9ff. (Munich, 1886), H. Zimmer, Nennius Vin-
dicatus, 245ff. (Berlin, 1893), and, above all, R. Thurncysen,
Zs. f. d. Ph., XXVIII, 86ff. (1896). W. W. Newell, PMLA,
XX, 628ff.. (1905), is largely based on Thurneysen.

The starting-point was given by an entry in the chronicle
of Eusebius-Jerome, which was a popular historical handbook in
the Middle Ages. Here, under the date of the year of Abraham
1875 (i. e. 188, B. C.), it is stated: ‘Brutus Hiberiam usque ad
Oceanum subigit.’””’ This Brutus was a Roman consul of the year
in question, D. Junius Brutus, surnamed Callaicus. The compiler
of the Historia Brittonum in its earliest form (679), tempted
by the similarity of the names Brutus and Britannia, — and few
mediaeval chroniclers could have resisted the temptation — tacitly
extended the conquests of this consul to Britain, also, and inserted
in the Historia the statement (ch. 7): ‘‘Britannia insula a quodam
-Bruto consule Romano dicta.” The author of this etymology may
or may not have known the uncomplimentary derivation of ‘‘Bri-
tones” from the Latin adjective “brutus” (stupid, brutish), which
had already been incorporated into another popular handbook of
the time, the Htymologiae (written in 628) of Isidore of Seville,
who says, Book IX, ch. 12: “Britones quidam Latine nominatos
suspicantur, eo quod bruti sint.”’

_ This same compiler added (ch. 17), still further, a genealogy
of the Britons, the origin of which is as follows:
4*

Google

52 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

In the pseudo-learned genealogy of the Romans and the Ger-
manic nations which was drawn up in France somewhere about
520 A. D. and which has been best edited, under the title of
‘Die frinkische Vélkertafek”, by K. Miallenhoff, in the Abhand-
lungen der Koéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlén,
aus dem Jahre, 1862, pp. 532ff., these nations are said to be
descended from three brothers, Erminus, Inguo and Istio (i. e.
the eponymi respectively of the Herminones, Ingaevones, and
Istaevones, the three great divisions of the Germanic tribes ac-_
cording to Tacitus, Germania, ch. 2, and Pliny, Naturalis Hes-
toria, Book IV, ch. 14.). In the text as printed by Millenhoff
it is said of the third of these brothers: ‘‘Istio frater eorum genuit —
Romanos, Brittones, Francus, Alamannus.” Now in ch. 17
(Mommeen, pp. 159‘f.) of the Héstoria Brittonum, we have an
attempt in the true mediaeval style to run the genealogical line
of the Britons back to Adam. The author follows the method
of the genealogies in the Bible, which had also, no doubt, been
the model of the Frankish “‘Vélkertafel’’, and boldly connects the
Istio of the latter, through his father, Alanus (already included
in the Frankish document) and a few intervening fictitious an-
cestors, with the Old Testament genealogies. He carries out the
system of his sources, however, still further, and partly influenced
by the Old Testament and partly adopting, perhaps, the sug-
gestion of the “Francus, Alemannus”’ of the Frankish document,!
gives the name of each of the nations concerned in the singular
as that of a national eponymus. Thus he says sbid.: ‘‘Hissitio
[ MS. corruption for Histio = Istio] autem habuit filios quattuor:
Francus Romanus Britus Albanus [MS. corruption for Ale-
mannus |.”

The Romans and Britons now stood together in this genealogi-
cal list, and this fact stimulated later interpolators to still further
inventions connecting the two more intimately, which resulted in

7 In the barbarous Latin of the time, « often stood for long 0.
Cp. M. Bonnet, Le latin de Gregoire de Tours, pp. 126ff. (Paris,
1890). Hence these accusative plurals had the same forms as nomi-

native singulars.

Google

Brutus, Eponymus of the Britons 53

ch. 10—11. For these inventions the chronicle of Eusebius-Jerome
again furnished the starting-point: |

In that chronicle, under the year of Abraham 878 (cp. Thur-
neysen, pp. 87f.), the compiler makes certain statements about
the “reges Albanorum, Sylvii”, descendants of Aeneas, the Trojan
leader, who was so: well-known through Virgil as an ancestor of
the Romans. The author of the source of the part of the. Historia
Brittonum with which we are now dealing (apparently, an [rish-
man) misinterpreted (wilfully, it may be) these “Albani” (who
were, of course, really Italians of the region near Rome) as the
inhabitants of ‘‘Albion” (Britain). The author of ch. 10—11
in the Historia, itself, on the strength of this confusion, identi-
fies Brutus, the first Roman consul — whom, as the first consul,
he chooses to make a brother of Romulus and Remus, the founders
of Rome, and hence a descendant of Aeneas and the ‘‘Albanorum
reges” — with the Brutus after whom, according to ch. 7, already
Britannia had been named. Consequently, we have Silvius As-
canius, Aeneas, and their Trojan ancestors now introduced into
the genealogy of Brutus.* Lastly, he makes this Brutus, after
whom Britannia was named, absorb also the function of the Britto
(Britus) who had developed as the eponymus of the Britons out
of the Frankish genealogy of the nations in the manner that we
have seen. Henceforth, we shall hear, then, in the mediaeval chro-
nicles only of Brutus.

* This part, doubtless, underwent expansion at different times.

Google

Chapter IIL.

Supplementary Observations on the Question:
Were there Arthurian romances before Chrétien?

Many eminent Arthurian scholars have answered this question
in the affirmative — e. g., G. Paris, Manuel, pp. 100f., E.
Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XX XI?, 143f. (1907) and Miss
J. L. Weston, The Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 230f., (1909).
Let us now examine the evidence on the subject.

We have already considered the bearing on this question of
the Italian names to which P. Rajna called attention, and of the
figures on the Cathedral at Modena, — also, of the Wolfram-Guiot
and Mabinogion controversies.* Leaving these matters aside, we
may say that, perhaps, the best statement which has been presented
of the reasons for believing that there were romances before Chré-
tien is that of Eduard Wechssler, Sage vom heiligen Gral, pp.
156f. (Halle, 1898). Of the five reasons advanced by Wechssler
two are obviously of little force. The first indeed, rests on a
blunder. He cites as evidence of a French Lancelot romance
before Chrétien a supposed episode in Malory’s Morte Darthur
of the woman who is turned into a dragon for not obeying the re-
quirements of the amour courtois. But the episode here refer-
red to is really in the Middle High German Lanzelet, not in
Malory. Gaston Paris, to be sure, expresses the belief, Romania,

* The chief representatives of the opposing view have been
W. Foerster in the prefaces to his various editions of Chrétien’s works
— especially, the Lancelot, W. W. Newell, The Legend of the Holy
Grail (Cambridge, Mass., 1902), and W. Golther in numerous reviews.

* Cp. I, 12 ff. 313ff., above.

* Foerster has subjected Wechssler’s argument to an elaborate
refutation in the Introduction to his edition of Chrétien's Lancelot,
pp. XCIi ff.

Google

Supplementary Observations 55

XII, 503ff. that in his Book XIX, where Lancelot rescues Guine-
vere from Mellyagraunce, Malory was following a more primitive
version than Chrétien’s of the incident which we may call the
Rape of Guinevere. But this is surely an error, for Malory’s work
is based on the prose romances, and, i no ascertained case, on any
French poem, whether early or late.

Wechseler’s second reason has hardly greater force than his
first — namely, Chrétien’s-mention of a book as the source of his
Perceval. But, even if the statement is not intentionally mis-.
leading, the term “book” is indefinite and does not necessarily
imply a French romance.

~The following points cited by Wechssler are the ones that
have most weight:

1. The list of Round Table heroes given by Chrétien in his
Erec, 11. 1691ff., implies a fully developed literature on the sub-
ject already. When Erec brings his bride to Arthur’s court, the
poet introduces this long list of the knights who were there —
Gawain, Lancelot, and a host of others.

2. The supposed fact that the Tristan legend had already
been treated in French verse. |

3. The supposed priority over Chrétien of the French original
of the Middle High German poem Lanzelet by Ulrich von Zatzik-
hoven, who wrote at the end of the twelfth century.

Now, the third point is so doubtful that it can hardly be
used in the controversy. For the considerations that tell against
this assumed priority, cp. I, 2104f., above.

As far as the first point is concerned, Foerster (p. XCI of
Introduction to Lancelot) has rightly urged that there is no reason
to suppose that Chrétien was here using written sources of any
kind. At the beginning of the Erec he says: ‘The story is of
Erec, the son of Lac. Those who wish to live by telling stories
are in the habit of tearing it to pieces and perverting it before
kings and counts.” These words evidently refer to oral reci-
tation.‘

* It should be mentioned here that the eminent Celticist, J. Loth,
has tried to show by the forms of the French names Yvatn, Loth, etc.,

Google

56 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

The one point in Wecehssler’s list that has real force is, in
my judgment, the second. If we grant that a great poem on Tristan
existed in the first half of the twelfth century, that would create,
undeniably, a presumption that there were Arthurian romances
before Chrétien, for it is not at all likely that such a poem stood
isolated in the poetical literature of the time. Foerster, Lence-
lot, p..xciv, meets this point with the observation that the Tristan
saga had originally nothing to do with the Arthurian cycle and
was first connected with it after Geoffrey of Monmouth and Wace
had established the stories of this cycle in contemporary litera-
ture. So this is no argument, he says, for the supposed Arthurian
romances before Chretien.

It is undoubtedly true that Tristan was originally unconnected.
with Arthur, yet if similar poems were written about the charac-
ters whom we find associated with the great king in Chretien,
these would constitute substantially Arthurian romances. We need
not suppose that the lost poems exhibited the artificial ideal of
the amour courtois like Chrétien or followed his methods of psycho-
logical analysis — they would, nevertheless, remain Arthurian ro-
mances — that is, narrative poems embodying romantic tales con-
cerning Arthurian heroes.

As a matter of fact, however, Miss Schoepperle’s investigations
(cp. I, 152f., note, above) prove that the lost romance on Tristan
from which our extant versions are descended was not composed before
the second half of the century, and only a short time, if at all,
before Chrétien began to write.’ Chrétien’s own knowledge of the
in relation to their Celtic originals, that Chrétien must have used
written Welsh sources. Cp. his articles, “Des nouvelles théories sur
l‘origine des romans arthuriens” in the Revue Celtique, XIII, 475tt.
(1892) and “Le roi Loth des romans de la Table Ronde”, XVI, 84,
(1895). But his arguments have been successfully refuted by Zimmer.
See Foerster, pp. CXXIIIff. These names had been long current
among the French-speaking populations who transmitted the matiére
de Bretagne from Brittany to the French poets, and apparent coin-
cidences with Welsh in slightly differentiated matters of pronunciation,
such as 5 against « in twelfth century Breton, in Caradoc Briebras

(Brechbras) and the like, can claim no importance.
* Cp. I, 152f,, note 1, above.

Google

Supplementary Observations. 57

Tristan story need not, then, have been derived from a formal ro-
mance — it may have come from oral recitations. Consequently,
in this case, as in the case of his other works, there is no convincing
proof that he drew on poems earlier than his own — or, in any
event, on a narrative poem of considerable extent.

It would be special pleading, however, to deny that the lost
Tristan romance may have been anterior to Chrétien. But this
relatively late work is the only definite romance of which, on the
basis-of positive data, one may maintain not unreasonably that
it was composed before Chrétien began to write. There may have
been a few more such narrative poems of whose existence we pos-
sess now no evidence, but in the present writer's opinion, in any
event, there is nothing to justify the assumption of a fully devel-
oped genre of Arthurian romance before the great master whom
we have just named.® . |

In addition to Wechssler’s arguments in favor of the existence
of Arthurian romances before Chrétien, it is well to mention the
following also: 1. A. Jeanroy’s (cp. Faral, p. 395) to the effect
that the love-episodes in the romances of antiquity (absent from
their main Latin sources) must have been suggested by pre-Chré-
tien Arthurian romances. E. Faral, however, has shown that cer-
tain Latin writings, especially Ovid’s, are the true sources of these
episodes. Cp. his Recherches sur les sources latines des contes
et romans courtois du moyen age, pp. 406ff. (Paris, 1913). 2. The
supposed French origin of the forms Walgainus, Hiderus, in Geof-

* In my edition of the De Ortu Waluuantt, p. 111, I have
pointed out a detail towards the end of Chrétien's Perceval, ll. 8057 ft.
(Baist’s edition) which would lead one to infer that Chrétien was using
here a lost romance on Gawain’s youth — the common source of the
De Ortu and the Enfances Gauvain — whose existence seems
assured. The episode in the Perceval takes it for granted that Gawain
was separated from his mother from his infancy onwards, but how this
came about and its consequences constitute the theme of the two ro-
mances just named — so the common source of these romances was,
doubtless, older than the Perceval. It may have been later, however,
than some of Chrétien’s other romances.

Google

58 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

frey’s Historia. Cp. Lot, Romania, XXV, 2ff. But this con-
jectured French origin is too little assured to be used as evidence.

Latterly, W. Meyer-Liibke in his “Crestien von Troyes Erec
und Enide,” Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XLIV!, 129ff., especially,
pp. 159ff., has re-examined the question of pre-Chrétien romances,
taking the Erec as the basis of his investigation. He is inclined
to answer the question affirmatively, but his results seem to me
wholly indefinite. His discussion of the names, pp. 163ff., strikes
‘me as the best part of the work.

Go ogle

Chapter IV.
The Mabinogion Controversy.

I.

It may be said, in general, that the scholars who look upon
the Welsh tales as independent of Chrétien have based their argu-
ment mainly on the ground that the former, in some important
points, exhibit a more logical narrative than the latter and hence
represent a more primitive form of the story — in other words,
are not derived directly from Chrétien, but from a common source.
Apart from the fact that opinions differ very much in individual
cases, as experience abundantly shows, as to which of two variants
im any given narrative is the more logical, the whole principle
-must be regarded as possessing only a limited validity. Even
great writers have been occasionally guilty of inconsistencies or
inadequate motivation which an adapter of far inferior powers
might remove or improve. The line of argument which is taken
by the above-mentioned scholars — and at the same time, I be-
lieve, its weakness — can best be illustrated, however, by a con-
crete example:

In the case of Geratnt and Enid the main objection urged is
that, unlike Chrétien, the Welsh here offers a satisfactory motive
in respect to the matter which is, as it were, the very raison d'étre
of almost the whole story, viz. the hero’s harsh treatment of his
wife (Enid), from the time that he is awakened by her lament over
his neglect of knightly activities, for which she has, as she repeats
to him, heard him blamed by other knights and for which she
recognizes his excessive affection for herself as the cause, down
to the point (near the end of the tale) where after her display of
devotion to him in many trying circumstances he changes his
mood. The motive for the hero’s conduct in Geraint and Enid is

Go ogle

60 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

expressly stated to be jealousy;! in Chrétien we are left to infer
for ourselves what it is.* A few lines of explanatory comment
would undoubtedly have helped to clarify Chrétien’s handling of
the situation at this point. In the main, however, in his narrative
the motives of Erec’s conduct are sufficiently clear. His wife's
implied criticism of his sloth in arms has awakened his suspicions
of her love for him, and, it may be added, also, of her conformity
to the spirit of obedience which the men of the Middle Ages,
high and low, were, as a rule, accustomed to exact from their
womenkind. Jealousy was not in question, for there is nothing
in the etory to suggest it, and, bésides, Chrétien distinctly says
that Erec was not jealous.» That the harshness with which he
treats his wife was undeserved goes, of course, without saying;
but there is plenty of precedent in actual life for this picture
of a man who vents the self-dissatisfaction which springs from
the: stings of his own conscience upon an innocent victim — es-
pecially, upon the wife who has unwittingly aroused him to a sense
of his delinquencies. The whole story of Enid’s trials, then, is
a characteristic test of a woman’s love by her husband in the
mediaeval vein. In the case of the Patient Griselda, who, like
Enid, was raised from poverty to high station by her marriage,
three leading writers of the Middle Ages, in succession — Boc-
caccio, Petrarch and Chaucer — took even less pains than Chre-
tien to supply a plausible motive for the hero’s brutality.‘ It

* Loth, 1*, 152. * ll. 2576ft. * 1, 3804.

“I had written the above lines before I observed that E. Phi-
lipot had already drawn the comparison (Romania, XXV, 264) between
Enid and Griselda. The same scholar declares, Annales de Bretagne,
XXVIII, 149 (1911) — in a review of Edens’s dissertation — that he
would be suspicious of any form of the Griselda story that would justify
the Marquis’s conduct to his wife. This seems to me to be a just
observation.

In arguing against the fairy mistress origin of the Erec-Enid
story, M.B. Ogle, “The Sloth of Erec”, RR, IX, iff. (1918), has
shown by numerous examples that the opposition of endeavour and
marital love was a commonplace in Latin literature, both in antiquity
and in the Middle Ages. He is right, I believe, in his criticism of

Google

The Mabtnogion Controversy 61

was on the éncidents of the test and the pathos of the victim’s
patience and devotion that they concentrated the resources of their
art. These were the matters that really interested them.

The only passages in Chrétien which, at first blush, would
appear to conflict with the interpretation of Erec’s conduct to-
wards Enid that I have just given are one in which Erec ao-
- knowledges the justice of the criticism of his uxorious indolenc?
(2576f.) and another in which on setting out on the journey that
is to test Enid’s love and constancy, he recommends her to the
care of his father-in-law, in case he, himself, should die (2725ff.).
A modern writer here would, doubtless, have added in each in-
stance some two or three lines to prevent the impression of in-
consistency. In the first passage, he would have explained that,
in confessing his fault, the hero was revealing only a part of his
true mood. As it is, Chrétien leaves us to draw this inference from
the fear of the consequences of her imprudence which the unfortu-
nate Enid feels (2484ff.) after that confession has been made as
well as before. In the second passage, he might have added, though
the addition would not have been imperative, that, in spite of the
test to which he was about to subject her, the husband did not
desire in any event to leave his wife an outcast on the world.

It will be seen from the above that from the point of view
of the readers or hearers of twelfth century France, for whom
Chrétien was writing, the story of Erec’s conduct towards Enid
called for little explanation. But what judgment shall we pass
on the treatment of the same theme in the Welsh tale which Zenker
and his followers find so logical and satisfactory? As a matter
of fact, nothing could be more illogical than the conception here
of jealousy as the cause of the hero’s conduct. There is not the
trace of an incident in the story that might arouse such a passion,
and the author who did not understand the more complex emotions
of Chrétien’s characters in this central situation is simply falling
back on the motive which will nearly always pass muster in pic-

Nitze, Sheldon and B. R. Woodbridge. For the interpretation of the
first two, pp. 68—9, below. For Woodbridge’s interpretation see his
“Chrétien’s Erec as a Cornelian Hero”, RR, VI, 434ff. (1915).

Google

62 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

tures of matrimonial discord — namely, jealousy. But did any
one ever hear of a story of jealousy in which there is not even
the slightest allusion to the identity of the third party? The
introduction of this motive into the economy of the tale, as it
stands, is merely a crass blunder.

I. :

For a review of the debate, in its earlier phases, on the re-
lations of the Welsh tales to Chrétien cp. R. Edens, Hrec-Gerasnt ;
Der Chrétsen’sche Versroman und das walsche Mabinogi, pp. 1 ff.
(Rostock diss., 1910). San Marte and H. de la Villemarqué, the
first scholars to consider the matter, regarded the Mabénogion
as Chrétien’s source for his Erec, Yvain and Perceval, and this
untenable opinion prevailed for many years. The view, however,
that the two sets of works had a common source was advanced
at an early date, notably by W. L. Holland, the editor of Chre-
tien, but first gained prominence, when G. Paris espoused it, Ro-
mania, X, 467f. (1881), in connection with his well-known hypo-
thesis of the Anglo-Norman origin of the Arthurian romances.
In a more detailed study of the matter than had hitherto appeared,
Karl Othmer, Das Verhdlinis von Christian's von Troyes ‘ Erec
et Entde” zu dem Mabmogion (sic) des roten Buches von Her-
gest ‘Geraint ab Erbin’ (Bonn diss. 1889), maintained that the
Welsh tales were directly derived from Chrétien. This study led
G. Paris, Romania, XX, 166 (1891),5 to modify his previous
opinion and acknowledge Chrétien’s Erec as a source of Geraint

° Paris is reviewing Foerster’s edition of the Hrec (1890). The
review is very important as expressing the writer's estimate of the
literary value of the Erec as well as his opinions in regard to its
sources.

In an important article, ‘Une épisode d’Erec et Enide: La Joie
de la Cour’, Romania, XXV, 258ff. (1896) E. Philipot expresses
agreement (p. 294) with Othmer as to the relations of the Welsh tale
and Erec. In this article Philipot discusses the relations of the Joie
de la Cour episode in Erec to the similar episode of the Bel Inconnu
romances and concludes that the latter is not dependent on the former.
The conclusion, however, is very questionable.

Go ogle

The Mabinogion Controversy 63

and Enid, but he still assumed that the author of the Welsh tale
drew, also, from another lost French source. In his editions of
Chrétien’s romances, and, especially, in his edition (1899) of Chre-
tien’s Lancelot (Karrenritter), pp. oxxviiff., W. Foerster held to
Othmer’s position. With the appearance of Edens’s above-men-
tioned dissertation, however, the debate on the relation of the Erec
to Geraint and Enid passed into the stage of a furious controversy.
Following are the titles of the publications that pertain thereto,
arranged in chronological order:

1.
2.

3.

Edens’s dissertation (1910).

Foerster’s review of Edens, Literarisches Zentralblatt (LZ),
Aug. 26, 1911, cols. 1120ff.

Edens’s reply to Foerster, LZ, Nov. 18, 1911, cols. 1522 ff.
and Foerster’s rejoinder tbid., cols. 1525 ff.

. Foerster’s more elaborate reply to Edens in his ree

‘Noch einmal die sogenannte Mabinogionfrage,” Zs. f. frz.
Spr. u. Tatt., XXVIII, 149ff. (Dec. 1, 1911).

. Joint reply of Edens and R. Zenker to Foerster, LZ,

Dec. 2, cols. 1590f. and ibid., col. 1591, Foerster’s answer
thereto.

. R. Zenker, Zur Mabinogionfrage (Halle,, 1912).
. A. Smirnov, review of Edens, Revue Celtique, XXXITI,

130ff. (1912).

. P. A. Becker’s review of No. 6 in Literaturblatt fur germ.

u. roman. Ph. (LB), Jan., 1918, cols. 19ff.

. Zenker’s reply to Smirnov in “Nochmals Erec-Geraint,”’

Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt. XL', 186ff. (Feb. 17, 1913).

. Zenker’s reply to Becker, LB, May, 1918, cols. 180f.
- Genker’s fuller reply to Becker in ‘“Weiteres zur Mabi-

nogionfrage, I,” Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XLI, 181 ff.

_ (Nov. 10, 1913).

12.

13.

W. Gaede, Die Bearbeitungen von Chrétien's Erek und
die Mabtnogionfrage, Minster diss., 1913, in substantial
agreement with Foerster.

Zenker’s reply to Gaede, “‘Weiteres zur Mabinogtonfrage,
II,” Ze. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XLII, 11ff. (1914).

Google

64 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

14. Foerster, Chrétien Worterbuch, 1389*(1914).

In the course of the controversy Zenker yielded some points,
and No. 13 represents his maturest conclusions on the subject.
Sifting this article, then, we find that he rests his case for the
independence of the Welsh substantially on the following evidence:

1. pp. 33ff.. In W (Geratnt and Enid), as, partly, in Hart-
mann von Aue’s Krek,* the equipment which Enid’s father lends

* For the relation of Hartmann to Chrétien cp. K. Bartsch, “Uber
Christians von Troyes und Hartmanns von Aue ‘Erec und Enide’”,
Pteiffer's Germania, VII, 141ff. (1862). He concludes that, despite
differences, Chrétien was Hartmann’s sole source, although the MS.
which the latter used did not always offer the same readings as any
of our extant MSS. of Chrétien’s poem. E. Kilbing arrived at similar
conclusions with regard to the Norse version of this poem. Cp. his
“Die nordische Erexsaga und ihre Quelle”, thid., XVI, 381ff. (1871),
— also, Foerster’s large Hrec, pp. XVII ff., XLII ff. (Halle, 1890). As
against Bartsch, Foerster, op. cit. pp. XVUf., attributes to Hartmann’s
invention the variations in his narrative. For a continuation of the
controversy concerning Hartmann’s relation to Chrétien see (in addition
to articles cited above, which deal primarily with the question of the
Mabinogion) Karl Dreyer: Hartmanns von Aue Erec und seine alt-
franzésische Quelle. Programm Kinigsberg, 1893 — also, Paul Hagen,
“Zum Erec”, Zs. f. deutsche Ph., XXVII, 463ff. (1897), and F. Piquet,

ude sur Hartmann d’ Aue (Paris thesis, 1898). Dreyer’s conclusion
is that Hartmann’s source is Chrétien’s poem, but in a different re-
daction from that which we possess. Hagen and Piquet believe that
he used some other (unknown) source, in addition to Chrétien, and
G. Paris, in reviewing Piquet, Romania, XXVIII, 167 (1899), regards
that scholar’s result as plausible, though not assured. For a criticism
of Piquet by Foerster cp. the latter’s edition of Chrétien’s Lancelot,
pp. CXLIVff., note 1. In my opinion, Foerster is nearer the truth
than any of the other participants in this controversy.

Since Foerster’s death, Zenker, ‘“Weiteres zur Mabinogionfrage:
II, Die Bearbeitungen von Chrétien’s Erec in ihrem Verh&ltnis zu
diesem, und zu dem kymrischen Mabinogi”, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Ltt.
XLV', 47ff. (1917), has argued that Hartmann used a form of the
Erec story which was, in many respects, different from Chrétien's.
Some of his points are worthy of attention, but, on the whole, they
are, in my opinion, susceptible of explanation on the same principles
as the instances which I have discussed in the text. The Anhang
(pp. 95ff.) to this article consists of a reply to W. Meyer-Libke,

Google

The Mabinogion Controversy 65

Erec for the sparrow-hawk contest is poor and rusty, as accorded
with the owner’s poverty; in Chrétien it is fine and bright. The
Welsh is more logical and hence preserves a more primitive form
of the incident. |

In reply one might say that armor is the last thing that a
knight would neglect, and, as Zenker concedes, there is no ab-
solute reason for condemning Chrétien’s version. On the. other
hand, the Welsh author might naturally have changed Chrétien,
in order to harmonize the armor with the general poverty of Erec’s
host. This is all the more likely, inasmuch as the suggestion lay
ready to hand in the terms of Erec’s request for arms (ll. 609f.):

D’unes armes viez ou noveles.
Ne me chaut ou leides ou beles. |

As regards the partial agreement with W in H (Hartmann),
who represents the armor as bright, but the shield, spear, and
covering of the horse as obsolete and unsuitable, on which Zenker
lays stress, this is, no doubt, a half-hearted attempt on the part
of the German poet in the same direction as W. Zenker’s expla-
nation, however, seems to me forced, viz. that H had two versions
before him, one like Chrétien’s, the other like W’s, and that he
took the description of the shield and spear from the latter and
the rest from the former.

2. pp. 35ff.. In the duel between Erec (Geraint) and Yder,
according to W and H, both break several lances, before they
begin the fight with swords on foot, and in the end the hero only
unhorses his opponent with a lance given him by Enid’s father.
In Chrétien, too, the old man gives Erec a lance (implied in le

“Chrestien von Troyes Erec und Enide”, +bid., XLI, 129ff., who, among
other things, had expressed his agreement with Foerster and Becker
as to the direct dependence of the Welsh Gereint on Chrétien.

The present work was about to go to press, when Zenker’s
Forschungen zur Artusepik I. Ivainstudien (Halle, 1921) reached
me. In this volume he maintains, of course, the same side in the
Mabinogion controversy as in his previous writings — more especially,
with reference to the Yvain. As I have said above, I regret that his
book arrived too late for me to take account of it in the present
treatise. .

Helperia, Exgdngungsrethe: 9. 5

Google

66 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

soreplus, 1. 629) beforehand, but the weapon is not mentioned
specifically in the account of the combat. Moreover, after a single
tilt both combatants are unhorsed and resume the fight with swords
on foot.

The agreement between W and H is not perfect, for in the
former Ynywl steps forward during the fight and presents tho
spear to the hero, whereas in H Erec already has it and merely
reserves it to the last. Descriptions of combats in the Arthu-
rian romances are rarely so brief as this one in Chrétien, and it
was quite natural for two writers independently to try to enhance
the interest of the narrative by the device of retardation. There
is always the possibility, too, which Foerster emphasizes, Karren-
ritter, pp. cxxxvf., that they were using MSS. that contained
variant readings not preserved in our extant MSS. In view of the
wholesale agreement of W and Chrétien throughout their. narra-
tives. it would be unjustifiable to attach any importance to this.
partial coincidence in respect.to a minute detail between W and H.

3. pp. 39ff., 62ff. The motive of jealousy which is found
in W, but not in C. [ have already discussed this above.

4. pp. 44ff. When the importunate count in Chretien (ll.
3522 ff.) comes to abduct Enid, he finds that she and Erec have
departed and he sets out in pursuit, but nothing is said of his
questioning the host in regard to their flight. In both W and H,
however, we have a dialogue of this sort, although different in
detail. In W the count asks in anger why the innkeeper did not
warn him of their departure, to which the man replies that the
count had not ordered him to do so. Moreover, he can only tell
the nobleman that the pair took the high road on leaving the inn.
In H the host is as high-tempered as the count, and a heated col-
loquy ensues, in which the former denies any knowledge as to the
whereabouts of the supposed fugitives. The dialogue here is longer
and the count more suspicious of the host.

It is quite possible that Foerster’s theory, mentioned in the
discussion of No. 2, applies also in this case. But, after all, such
a dialogue is naturally suggested by the situation, and Chrétien's
treatment of the count’s deecent upon the inn is, perhaps, unduly

Google

The Mabtnogion Controversy 67

abrupt. There is, consequently, nothing arbitrary in assuming with
Gaede that W and H hit upon their additions independently here.
As a parallel example, take the coincidence between W and the Old
French prose version (cp. Zenker, p. 55) in respect to the dwarf
at the beginning of the story. Chrétien (ll. 225ff.) says that when
the dwarf struck Erec, the latter failed to resent it, because the
dwarf’s master, standing by, was armed, as Erec was not. In
addition, both W and the Old French prose declare that he was
also restrained by the feeling that for a knight to slay a dwarf
would have done dishonor to the knight. Now, no one has ever
maintained that the prose had any other source than Chrétien,
yet here it agrees with W. The reason is that the situation sug-
gested this appeal to what was a common mediaeval sentiment.

5. pp. 48ff. In Chrétien (ll. 4045ff.), Erec, with the butt
of his spear, unhorses Kay (Keu), but when he learns that the
horse which Kay was riding belonged to Gawain he at once sur-
renders it. Kay takes the steed back to court and recounts the
affair there. Arthur’s curiosity 1s aroused, and he sends Gawain
to fetch the stranger to him. Erec, however, being wounded and,
generally, in bad condition, declines, but Gawain sends a ‘‘vaslet”’
to tell the king to pitch his tent at a point on the road where he
will have the chance of making the acquaintance of “the best
knight, of a truth, that he might ever expect to see.” Presumably,
because of his armor, Gawain does not recognize Erec. On the
contrary, in W he does recognize him, and so Zenker contends
that here again we have in W a logical, primitive trait which
proves its independence of Chrétien; for how could Gawain speak
of a knight that he did not know in such terms? The expression,
however, is obviously hyperbolical —- purposely so on Gawain’s
part, probably, as Becker, LB, XX XIV, 25, has observed, in order
to excite Arthur’s curiosity all the more — and is not at all un-
natural, when one considers the impression which Kay’s report
of the stranger’s prowess and courtesy (the latter, nota bene, shown
especially to Gawain) had made at court and how this impression

was deepened by the sight of Erec, himself. We may take the
5*

Google

68 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

alteration in W, then, as simply another example of the literal
tendency of the author’s mind.

It will be observed that only Nos. 2 and 4 among Zenker’s
objections are based on concrete evidence. The rest are, to all
‘intents and purposes, subjective.

The controversy is continued, in part, by W. A. Nitze in
“The Romance of Erec, son of Lac,’ MPh., XI, 445ff. (1914),
especially, pp. 471ff., where the author, though believing that
Chrétien was using a Celtic source, maintains, versus Edens, that
Erec is more primitive than Geratnt. For the rest, Nitze explains
Erec’s treatment of Enid as due to his desire to assert the principle
of the husband’s “sovereignty” in marriage, at all costs (p. 448).
I cannot agree with Nitze (pp. 459ff.) in acoepting the theory
of E. Philipot, Romania, XXV, 264,’ (1896) and M. Roques,
sbid., XXXIX, 379ff.2 (1910), that the story of Enid is simply
an adaptation of the Joie de la Cort story near the end of the
Erec.® There is not a trace of the supernatural in the former,
as we have it, and where the incidents are so totally different, there
is no basis for the idea that Chrétien gave a new and rationalized
shape to the original Joie de la Cort story with the aim of pre-

* In the article “Un episode d’Erec et Enide: La Joie de la
Cour-Mabon l’enchanteur’, Romania, XXV, 258ff. The author dis-
cusses its relations to the Bel Inconnu romances, especially. He
regards (pp. 293f.) Geraint as derived directly from Erec.
© In his review of Myrrha Borodine’s La femme et l'amour au
XII siécle d’aprés les poémes de Chrétien de Troyes (Paris, 1909),
where, p. 76, Erec’s conduct to his wife is explained on the principle
that the duties of knighthood must be superior to love. Roques objects
to the current view that the Joie de la Cort episode is an “hors-
d’oeuvre’’; but the looseness of structure of the Arthurian romances
permitted such an episode.

° In his article, “The Sloth of Erec’, Romanic Review, IX, 1.
(1918), M. B. Ogle, answering Nitze, disputes (rightly, I believe) any
connection between the Erec-Enide story and the fairy mistress theme.
He cites (pp. 9ff.) examples from Latin literature and from mediaeval
works that continue the classical tradition to prove that the opposition
of love to endeavor was a commonplace of such literature. Cp. Nitze’s
rejoinder, “Erec’s Treatment of Enide”’, ibid. X, 26ff. (1919).

Google

The Mabinogion Controversy or

senting an intentional contrast ‘“‘entre la sage Enide et sa ro-
manesque cousine” (Roques). A brief summary of the story of
the ‘“‘cousine” (ll. 6052ff.) will reveal the difference: A knight
(Mabonagrain) unwarily binds himself, by a don, to his lady-love
never to leave the marvelous garden, in which his uncle Evrain
had conferred on him the order of knighthood, until be is over-
come by some challenger. She did not believe that this would
ever happen, and, on the other hand, she told him that she would
abandon him, should he violate his pledge. He slays many knights
who attempt the adventure, but is, at last, vanquished by Erec,
who then blows a magic horn and dissolves the enchantment, thereby
liberating the knight. A wall, as it were, of air (ll. 5739ff.),
created by necromancy, had cut off the garden from the surrounding
world.

We have evidently here in partly rationalized form the story
of a fay who keeps her mortal lover in her power by a spell,!°
but in what point has it any relation to the story of Enid?
| Furthermore, in RR. V, 115ff. (1914), in his article, “Why

does Chrétien’s Erec treat Enid so harshly?,” E. S. Sheldon re-
jects Nitze’s solution and argues that in the passage, ll. 2493ff.,
Ereo only heard Enid’s “Con mar i fus!” (1. 2507) and, ob
serving her weeping, asked her the cause, and that, when she evaded
a direct answer, until she was forced to give one, her husband’s
confidence in her sincerity was shaken — hence his harsh conduct
towards her. This, however, seems hardly an adequate motive,
even from the mediaeval point of view, for so long a course of ill-
treatment."

*° The Calypso-Ulysses motif, which is frequent, too, in Celtic
tales. Foerster, Wérterbuch, p.116*, interprets it as a variant of
the motif of the liberation of a girl whom a giant has made captive,
bat the girl here is evidently the dominant figure.

2 J. H. Kool: “Le probléme Erec-Geraint”, Neophilologus, 10,
167#f. (Groningen, 1918), examines Chrétien’s method of paraphrasing
Ovid in his Philomena and tries to apply the results to the Hrec problem.
This is all beside the mark, however, and the article is negligible. _.

In MLN, XVID, 220ff. (1903) A. J. Morrison has pointed out an
apparent imitation of Erec — decayed gentleman motif — in Sone

Google

pa Evolution of Arthurian Romance

The name, ‘“‘Erec’’, is Breton. Cp. J. Loth, Revue Celtique,
XIII, 482ff. (1892), and Mabinogion®, I, 56 (1913). F. Lot,

de Nausay, ll. 12673ff. and thid., XX, 222f. (1905), a Modern
Welsh parallel, in Allen Raine’s Heart of Wales (London, 1905),
pp. 2ff., for the same motif.

‘* Zimmer, Zs. f. frz. Spr. «. Litt., XIl', 26ff.. had wrongly
argued that “Erec’’ was a Germanic name and had identified the
character with Eoric, King of the Westgoths (466—485), who were
established in Southern Gaul. Zimmer wished still further to discard
Outre-Gales, the name of Erec’s conntry, which Foerster adopts in |
his edition of the poem (ll. 1874, 3881), and substitutes therefor
Estregales, which in some MSS. takes the place of Outregales (1. 3881).
This Estregales Zimmer derives from an hypothetical Deztra Gallia,
which he interprets as Southern Gaul. Through a misunderstanding of
the original, Destregales, he thinks, came to be interpreted as @’ Estr'e-
gales (Estregales meaning “Beyond Wales”) — hence in the MSS.
just referred to we have (1. 3881): “Rois est mes pere d’Estregales”’.
Space prevents me from summarizing the “evidence” with which he
supports this hypothesis. Suffice it to say that it is of the flimsiest
character. Destregales is not found anywhere, except once (conti-
nuation to Chrétien's Perceval, 1. 13725), and that in a passage so
corrupt that nobody knows what it means. The only thing certain
about the line is that the form Destregales in it is due merely to a
scribe’s blunder. On the other hand, Dextra Gallia is purely hypo-
thetical. F. Lot, Romania, XXV, 7ff. (1896), accepts, however,
Zimmer's Destregales and Dextra Gallia — only he interprets them
as referring to South Wales and cites in favor of his interpretation
from Welsh writings, dextralts Walliae pars, dextralis Kambria,
dextralis Britannia. G. Paris, however, in a note at the end of Lot's
article (p. 32), disputes the whole basis of his and Zimmer's specu-
lations, viz. that d’Estregales in Erec, ll. 1874, 3881, is not the
correct reading. His own suggested reading, @’Osteregales (= Au-
stralis Wallia of Giraldus Cambrensis), however, has no manuscript
authority. Lot's interpretation is, no doubt, a consequence of his
theory that Chrétien’s source for Hrec was Welsh. I have commented,
above, on the other supposed evidence for this theory which he has
adduced.

In the Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXVIII", 78 ff. (1804) E. Brugger
has offered some effective criticism of Zimmer and Lot, and would
himself identify Estregales with Strathclyde (‘Valley of the Clyde”),
the old Celtic kingdom, which extended from the Derwent (in England)
to the Clyde (in Scotland). He derives the name, Estregales, from —

Google

The Mabinogion Controversy 71

Romania, XXV, 588 ff. (1896), has identified him with an ac-
tual Count of Nantes of the same name who died about 990, but
historical conditions render it probable that the Bretons regarded
this personage as an enemy, rather than as a national hero, and
so Lot thinks that he is a substitute for the original hero, Ge-
raint, who ruled (cp. sbid., pp. 10f.) over Devon and Cornwall
.in the latter part of the seventh century. In Foerster’s edition,
however, of Chrétien’s '‘Karrenritter (Lancelot, pp. cxvf.), Zimmer
points out that there were two earlier princes named ‘Weroc”’
(= ‘‘Erec’’) in the sixth century in south-east Brittany (including
Nantes) and that the second (last quarter of the century) was
famous on account of his battles with the Franks. The objec-
tion to the tenth century Erec would not apply in these cases.
In any event, the substitution of the unpopular Erec of the tenth
century for an earlier hero would be hard to explain.

In Romania, XXX, 21 (1901), Lot, also, identifies Enide
with “‘enit”’, the Welsh word for “woodlark’’, which he says does
not exist in Breton, as far as he knows. In the absence of early
Breton records, however, one cannot say whether this was true
of the period with which we are particularly concerned or not,!5
and, besides, the similarity between the forms just named may
be purely accidental.’

According to Lot (Romania, XXV, 9ff.) certain names of

places in Chrétien’s poem (Rotelan-Ruddlan, Caradigan, etc.) prove
Celtic Stratcloith through an hypothetical Estregalo(u) (-1). His
conclusions, however, depend on the validity of a long chain of spe-
culations (pp. 97ff.) and are anything but convincing.
_ '* In Romania, XXIV, 321 ff. (1895) F. Lot, also, interprets the
name, “Mabonagrain”, as a combination of “Mabon” and “Evrain’,
names of two magicians who figure in Le Bel Inconnu (which is,
itself, of course, of much later date than the Erec), “Evrain” being
really a distortion of “Eunain’’ (= “Owain"). It seems to me, how-
ever, more likely that the author of Le Bel Inconnu (Li Biaus
Descouneus) took the name “Evrain” direct from Mabonagrain’s uncle
in the Erec and that he shortened Mabonagrain’s own name into
“Mabon”, because the latter was easier té handle in the verse.

“ Cp. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXVIL', 89 (1904)
— also, W. Meyer-Liibke, ibid., XLIV", 144f. (including note 19).

Go ogle

72 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

that the story came from Cornwall to Brittany by way of Wales —
which, one may. remark, would accord with the (now) abandoned
theory of Anglo-Norman origin of the Arthurian romances, but
would be a singularly indirect route for a tale actually to take
in passing from tle one country to the other. Besides, as Lot
five years later himself observes, Romania XXX, 19f. (1901),
Cardigan (Caradigan), as the name of a town, is not Welsh, but
Norman, the place to this day being known to the Welsh as
A berteivi. .

These names play, also, an important part in the argument
of Edens and Zenker. Chrétien, however, would naturally locate
the plot of an Arthurian romance in Great Britain and conse-
quently make the place-names, in some degree, conform with this
conception. Similarly, the Welsh, in adapting Chrétien’s roman-
ces, would cymricise names of all kinds more completely, sub-
stituting, for example, “Geraint” for ‘‘Erec’’, with which they
were not familiar. :

In addition to the scholars who have taken an active part in
this controversy, J. Loth and A Nutt have also accepted the hypo-
thesis of a common French source for W and Chrétien. Cp.,
respectively, Les Mabinogion’, I, 53ff. (Paris, 1913), and the re-
print of Lady Charlotte Guest’s Mabinogion (London, 1902), with
notes by Alfred Nutt, pp. 351—354. Nutt here expresses the opi-
nion that G. Paris’s earlier theory of common Anglo-Norman
sources for Chrétien and the so-called Mabinogion is “probably
very near the truth” (p. 353). F. Lot, Romania, XXV, 8, 12
(1896), seems disposed, also, to believe in the complete indepen-
dence of the Mabinogion, and E. Windisch, in the work already
cited, pp. 221ff., goes furthest of all in taking up the impossible
position that the Mabinogion show no French influence at all.

J. Loth was unfortunate in declaring, op. cit., I, 51, that
‘En dehors de l’ecole de Foerster, dont le plus remarquable tenant
est W. Golther, on ne voit plus dans les romans gallois une tra-
duction des romans francajs.’’ (One has to take ‘‘traduction”’ here
in the sense of ‘‘adaptation”’, since it is not contended that the
Welsh stories were literal translations of Chrétien.) For certainly

Google

The Mabtnogion Controversy 73

Brugger and Nitze, to say nothing of P. A. Becker, do not belong
to Foerster’s school, and yet within a few years of the publication
of Loth’s work (the second edition) both had expressed the opinion
that Peredur was merely an adaptation of the Conte del Graal.
For the articles in question see my discussion of Peredur, above.
Every probability of course, favors the supposition that, if one
of these tales is derived from Chrétien, the others are, too.'®

The controversy which has been carried on with such ardor and,
frequently, with such acrimony, in regard to the relations of Chré-
tien’s Hrec and the Welsh Geratnt and Enid has extended, of course,
to the similar question in regard to the relations of his Yvain to
the Welsh Owain (i. e. Lady of the Fountain). It is impossible
for us, however, in this place, to discuss the questions at issue
so fully as we have done in the case of Erec. Suffice it to say
that the following are the most important contributions to the
Yvain-Owain controversy: 1. Foerster’s large edition of the Yvain,
pp. xixff. (1886). 2. A.C. L. Brown, “On the independent cha- .
racter of the Welsh Owain,” RR., ITI, 143ff. (1912), advocating
& common source, an Anglo-French metrical or Latin prose ro-
mance (p. 157). 3. A. Smirnov’s review of Brown’s article in
Revue Celtique, XXXIV, 337ff. (1913). 4. Walter Greiner’s
Leipzig diss.,1*° Owetn-Ivain: Neue Bettrage zur Frage nach der
Unabhangigkeit der Kymrischen Mabtnogion von den Romanen
- Chrestiens. Erster Teil (Halle, 1917). 5. R. Zenker, Ivain-
Studien (Halle, 1921). :

Both nos, 4 and 5 conclude that Chrétien and the Welsh
go back independently to an ultimate common source.

No. 2 is valuable for the parallels (pp. 157ff.) which the
author has collected from Celtic literature to features of Owatn. |
This does not conflict, however, with the hypothesis that Owatn

** The sparrow-hawk adventure (Il. 342ff.) was borrowed from
Erec by some of the later romances. Cp. W. H. Schofield, Studies on
the Libeaus Desconus, 164 ff. (Boston, 1895) and W. A. Nitze, MPh.
XI, 450 ff. (1914).

** This has been published, also, in the Zs. f. celt. Ph., XII,
1ff. (1918).

Google

74 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

is dependent on Yvain. We should simply have here the same
method of cymricisation of the French original that is observable
in @ somewhat more marked degree in Peredur. Brown’s effort
to prove that the Welsh tale is more primitive than Yvain, be-
cause it is (supposedly) more logical in some points, has been
successfully refuted, in my opinion, by Smirnov. Moreover, as
Foerster has remarked, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXXVI, 734, note 1
(1912) and Chrétien Worterbuch, 140ff. (1914), if Laudine, the
easily consoled widow, is imitated from Jocaste in the Roman de
Thebes, then, Owain is certainly dependent on Yvain. Now, the
Imitation in question seems undeniable, and has been accepted as
such by a number of especial students of the subject. Cp. Worter-
buch, 107*, note 1.

In closeness to the corresponding romance of Chrétien, Owasm,
though much condensed, stands midway between Geraint and Pere-
dur, the last-named showing (in certain sections) the widest de-
partures from the French, through the addition of new materials.
The episode of the Pesme Avanture (Yvam, ll. 5109ff.) is in
Owain placed at the end of Yvain’s exploits, but the story is the
same.!?

For the relation of Peredur to Chrétien’s Perceval and its
continuations, cp. I, 342ff., above.

‘' The three romances of Chrétien discussed above have come
down to us, also, in mediaeval Scandinavian versions: Hrexsaga, Ivent-
saga, Parztwvalsaga, edited by E. Kilbing in his Riddaraségur
(Strassburg, 1872). Chrétien is generally acknowledged to be the sole
source of these Old Norse prose tales. For detailed comparisons with
the French, besides the work just named, see E. Kilbing, “Die nordische
Erexsaga und ihre Quelle’, Pfeiffer's Germania, XVI, 381ff. (1871),
and on the Parzivalsaga, ibid. XIV, 129ff. (1869) — also, in-
troductions to Foerster’s large editions of the Hrec and Yvain, re-
spectively. The analogy of these Norse sagas has been often cited in
support of the view that Chrétien was, likewise, the only source of the
three Welsh tales.

Chapter V.
The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain.

As Nitze has observed,! we have in Laudine’s story neither
the heroine’s luring on of the hero to the adventure (enticement
motsf) nor the liberation of the heroine by the hero, which are
fundamental characteristics of the fairy mistress theme. Yvain
goes to the fountain to avenge his cousin, Calogrenant (1. 589).
He knows nothing of Laudine, and she knows nothing of him,
until he invades the castle under the circumstances which we have
seen, and, as the story stands, she is not in need of liberation.
Then, we have the complete divergence between the Yvaim and
Cuchullin’s Sick Bed concerned in respect to accessory details.

* MPh., VII, 160, note 5 (1909). G. Ehrismann, PBB, XXX,
14ff. (“Marchen im hdfischen Epos”) distinguishes as the most im-
portant motifs in the Arthurian romances (1) the Verlockungsmotiv
(the fairy’s enticement of the hero into fairy-land), (2) the Befreiungs-
motiv (liberation from the fairy’s power), and regards both as drawn
from Celtic — more particularly, Irish — Mdrchen. For a list of
scholars, beginning with Osterwald in 1853, who have derived the
Yvoain from a Celtic fairy tale cp. Brown, Iwain, pp. 19ff. and MPh.
IX, 109, note 4 (1911). Especially noteworthy is G. Paris’s idea,
Romania, XVII, 334f. (1888) that the Yoain story is of the same
type as that of Guingamor, Ogter le Danois, Tannhduser etc.: A
mortal marries a fay, leaves her, intending to return, but forgets his
promise or breaks her commands. In Chrétien, however, Laudine is
not called “the lady of the fountain”, as Paris asserts. This epithet
is found only in the corresponding Welsh tale. Ahlstrim makes the
same mistake in his “Sur l’origine du Chevalier an Lion”, Mélanges
de Philologie romane dédiés & Carl Wahlund” (Macon, 1896),
p. 297. His interpretation (p. 301) of Laudine as a “femme-cygne”’
(cp. the Wieland saga) is entirely baseless. G. Baist interprets her as
a ‘““Wasserfrau” whose story Chrétien attached to the spring in the
forest of Broceliande. Cp. Baist's article, “Die Quellen des Yvain”,
Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXI, 402ff. (1897).

Google

76 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

In rejecting Professor Brown’s solution of the problem,* one
must confess that none of the alternate hypotheses are wholly
satisfactory. The basis of the plot is, no doubt, a marchen. Chre-
tien, however, has altered his source to such a degree that the
outlines of the original are no longer recognizable. Professor
Nitze* had endeavored to explain the fountain story as derived |
from the myth of the Arician Diana, whose armed priest guarded
the grove and lake‘ of the goddess in the Alban hills near Aricia

* Cp. I, 94ff., above. — In his article, “Chrétien’s ‘Yvain’”,
MPh., IX, 109ff. (1911), Brown adds to his original theory of the
fairy mistress theme a feud motive. The “Hospitable Host, to whose
party doubtless were attached both Lunete and Laudine, was oppressed
by a tyrannical fairy foe, Esclados the Red, who had got Laudine into
his power. Lunete went to Arthur's court in the interests of the
Hospitable Host to persuade some mortal into undertaking the ad-
venture of the Fountain Perilous” (p. 111). But, this is substituting
for the actual story preserved in Chrétien’s text one so entirely different
that I see no profit in discussing it.

Even in his comparison of the Yvain with the Serglige Cuchulain
Brown has been criticised by G. Ehrismann (who, in the main, agrees
with him) for stressing the resemblances between the two and ne-
glecting the differences. Cp., too, PBB, XXX, 42, and more strongly
A. Jeanroy, Revue Critique, for Jan. 2, 1905, p. 4. For a similar
criticism of this defect of Brown's method im re Holy Grail, cp.
A. Nutt, The Academy, May 7, 1910, and tn re Yvain, Windisch,
Das Kelttsche Britannien bis zu Katser Arthur, p. 181 (Leipzig,
1912).

* First in his review of Brown's Jwain in MLN, XIX, 84 (1904),
and more fully in hig articles, “A New Source of the Yvain", MPh.,
Ill, 267 ff. (1965) and “The Fountain Defended”, «bid. VII, 145 ff.
(1909). In the latter article (p. 160), however, he assumes that the
myth was combined or confounded with the fairy mistress theme. In
this new form, then, his theory would relate only to the ultimate
source of the Yoain. In MPh. IX, 116ff. Brown has offered some
good criticism of this theory. I agree with Brown, ibtd., p. 127, that
in attempting to go behind the immediate sources of the Yvatn
(whatever they may be) Nitze is undertaking the impossible.

“ Not fountain. The interpretation of this myth forms, of course,
the starting-point of Sir J. G. Frazer's famous treatise, The Golden

Bough.

Google

The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain. 77

until some intruder — usually a runaway slave — challenged
the priest by breaking a sacred bough near her temple, and, if
victor in the combat that ensued, became the defender of the lake.
_ Apart, however, from the fact that there is no storm-making quality
associated with the Arician lake, there is no evidence that this
myth was ever localized in Brittany or that any native Gallic

fountain-cult ever assumed this form, under the influence of the
Arician myth, and, in the absence of such evidence, the theory
is unacceptable. On the other hand, according to the interpretation
of Foerster,’ the mdrchen involved is the familiar one of the girl
whom a giant has captured and who is liberated by the hero —
a motsf, of course, which is, in no way, specifically Celtic. The
storm-making spring was then foreign to the original story,
but was introduced by Chrétien from the description which
Wace gives in his Roman de Rou, ll. 6395ff., of the spring of
Berenton in the famous Breton forest of Broceliande,* just as he

* Cp. his Yvain, pp. XXXIVff. (1902) and Chrétien Wéorter-
buch, pp. 109*ff. (1914). Pp. 95*ff. of the latter work offer a
comprehensive discussion of all Yvatn problems and the critical lite-
ratare pertaining thereto down to 1914. So, too, — from the opposite
point of view — does R. Zenker’s [vainstudien (Halle, 1921), which
reached me too late to be used in this book.

* Wace, Joc. cit., says that, according to the Bretons, huntsmen
would pour water from the spring on a perron by its side and a rain
would fall on the forest and surrounding region. He says scornfully,
however, that he went to Berenton and that he did not see verified this
or any of the other marvels which the Bretons tell of the forest. For
the passage in Wace and other testimony to this Berenton fable cp.
Foerster, Chrétien Worterbuch, pp. 99*ff. For parallel stories else-
where, cp. Louise B. Morgan “The Source of the Fountain Story in
Ywain", MPh., VI, 331ff. and Nitze, ibid., 148 ff. (1908). G. L.
Hamilton is bringing out in the Romanic Review a study entitled
“Storm-making Springs: Studies on the sources of the Yvain”, in which
he is to deal with all such stories in popular tradition throughout the
world. He has published two sections of the study, ibtd., I, 355 ft.
(1911) and V, 213 ff. (1914), but has not yet reached the more im-
mediate parallels to the Yvatn spring. In his “Christian von Troyes
Yvain und die Brandanuslegende”, Zs. f. vergl. Litteraturgeschichte, —
N. F., XI, 442 ff. (1897), E. Kélbing thinks that the birds in the

Go ogle

78 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

also introduced from the Roman de Thebes, ll. 223ff., the motif
of the widow, easily consoled, who marries her husband’s slayer
almost immediately after the event.?’ Like Jocaste, the widow

Yoain, ll. 460ff., who sing their “servise’, after the storm at the
spring has passed away, were taken from a similar description in the
legend of the Irish St. Brendan, and Nitze, MPh., III, 274, note 2,
agrees with him. But the ecclesiastical image involved (the birds
singing a service) might occur to a writer in any age or country. Cp.
the elaborate use of the motif in the pseudo-Chaucerian Court of Love,
jl. 1352 ff. An example from the Arabian Nights is given by John
C. Hodges, MLN, XXXII, 282, (1917). It is a similar conception
_ when Salvator Rosa, condemning in his First Satire the custom of the
Italian princes of the seventeenth century in maintaining eunuchs in
their households as singers, says:

“EK in vece di un castrato ingordo e rio

Tenete un rusignol che nulla chiede,

E forse i canti suoi son inni a Dio.”

* A. G. Van Hamel first pointed this out in Romanische For-
schungen, XXIII (volume entitled Mélanges Chabineau), 911 ff. (1907).
His observation, which, I believe, is certainly right, has beeu widely
accepted. Cp. Foerster, Worterbuch, p.107*, note 1. In his first
small edition of Yvain, pp. XVf. (1891), Foerster had compared the
character of Laudine with that of the Widow of Ephesus, so well-
known from Petronius’s Satyricon, ch. 111—112, and studied in all
the variants of the motif by E. Grisebach, Die Wanderung der No-
velle von der treulosen Wittwe durch‘ die Weltlitteratur (2nd. ed.
Berlin, 1889). The characters unquestionably are very much alike, but
the circumstances of their stories are too widely different to be con-
nected historically, since in the Widow of Ephesus group, to mention
only one fundamental divergence, the second husband is not the slayer
of the first. Foerster’s idea that Chrétien's picture of Laudine’s fickleness
was suggested by some contemporary incident is not very probable. In
his article, “Byzantinisch-Geschichtliches im Cliges und Yvain", Zs. (f.
rom. Ph., XXXII, 400 ff. Franz Settegast goes so far as to identify
her with the Byzantine empress, Eudoxia, and Yvain with this empress's
husband, Romanos IV Diogenes (1068—1071); but there is really no
analogy between the two sets of incidents. Nitze, MPh. XI, 459,
note, pertinently calls attention to the actual practice of Chrétien's
contemporaries in regard to re-marriage. Even women of the highest
birth were less squeamish than is usually the case now in such matters.
One does not have to go back to Irish analogues like that which

Google

The Sources of Chrétten’s Yvain. 79

of Laius in the Roman de Thébes, who marries Oedipus, her first
husband’s slayer, Laudine, too, is aware of the identity of her
first husband’s slayer, as her vassals are not, but she pretends
to yield to their entreaties to marry him, because she wants to
have a defender for her possessions.* For the rest of the story,
Foerster argues that in conscious contrast to Erec, who, from uxori-
ousness, fell into a neglect of arms, Chrétien makes his new hero
scorn such slackness and continue to devote his life to deeds of
knighthood. It is true that the fickle lady, being angered by his
neglect, breaks with him and so throws him into a state of mad-
ness, but after his marvelous cure he still devotes himself to knight-
ly adventure up to the reconciliation at the end. The particular
adventures had no original connection with one another and are
here linked together for the first time.® One of them, indeed,

Windisch, Das keltische Britannien bis zu Kaiser Arthur, p. 167,
points out: Cuchullin marries Aiffe, whose husband he had just slain.

* As I have said in the text, I believe that Foerster is right in
his identification of Laudine with the heroine of the mdrchen indicated
above, but I cannot agree with him when he reads this same mottf,
Yvain*, pp. XXXIVff., and Worterbuch, pp. 109*ff. into the Joie de
la Cort episode of Hrec. The predominance of the girl in the latter
shows, it seems to me, that we have here a real instance of the fairy
mistress theme. Moreover, I cannot share Foerster’s opinion (loc. cit.)
as to the importance of the passages in the Lanzelet and Huon de
Bordeaux. Nitze, MPh., VII, 161, note (1909) has already remarked
that the Huon passage is clearly an imitation or reminiscence of the
Yvain, and believes that the same thing is true of the Lanzelet —
a third-rate poem that is made up of borrowings from every quarter,
including Chrétien’s romances, as Foerster, himself, /oc. cst. observes.

* This is the view expressed by Baist in the article, cited above.
The first part (the fountain-story) he thinks (pp. 404f.) “hat stofflich
den Charakter eines Lais, nicht den eines Romans’. In contrast with
Baist and Foerster, — and, I may add, Golther, Zs: f. frz. Spr. u. Litt.,
XXVOI*, 36 (1904) — we have A. C. L. Brown’s effort, “The Knight
of the Lion”, PMLA, XX 673 ff. (1905) above-mentioned to force all
the varied incidents of the part that follows the fountain story into the
pattern. of a single Celtic fairy tale (type of Cuchullin’s Sickbed),
which, in my judgment, is impossible. As far as Yvain's love-madness
is concerned, one does not have to go to Irish saga for this motif. In-

Go ogle

80 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

the episode of the Pesme Avanture (= Worst Adventure) is, in-
deed, merely a variant of the marchen on which the first part
of the poem is based — viz. that of a girl, the captive of a giant,
who is liberated by the hero. There can be little doubt that Foerster

sanity on account of love was a regularly recognized disease in me-
diaeval practice. Cp. J. L. Lowes’ well-known article, “The Lover's
Maladye of Hereos”, MPh., XI, 491ff. (1914). As Baist says (loc.
cit.) Chrétien, no doubt, really took the conception from the Folie de
Tristan.

Baist is also, no doubt, right in deriving the motif of the grateful
lion; which gave its name to the poem, from the classical story of
Androclus and the lion. In the original form of the story the cause
of the beast’s gratitude was that the hero had drawn a thorn from
his paw. Already by the first half of the eleventh century, a serpent
had superseded the thorn, and it is in this form that Chrétien uses the
story. Cp. on the whole subject G. Baist “Der dankbare Liwe”’,
Roman. Forsch., XXIX, 317ff. (1910). He quotes an example from
Petri Damiani Epistol. VI, 5 (first half of the eleventh century).
The best account of this motif (including cognate forms) has been
given by O. M. Johnston, “The Episode of Ivain, the Lion and the
Serpent in Chrétien de Troyes”, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXI',
157ff. (1907). Whether the motif is of oriental origin (as Johnston
maintains) or not, is, I believe, of little consequence with reference to
Chrétien, for he knew it, no doubt, merely in its (modified) classical
form. The story was told, indeed, of an actual knight, Golfier de las
Tors (from the Limousin), who participated in the first crusade. Various
legends attached themselves to his name — among others, that of the
grateful lion whom he delivered from a serpent. This last-named legend
was connected with him, it would seem, at least, as early as the latter
part of the twelfth century. The earliest record of it is found in the
Latin chronicle of Jaufré, prior of Vigeois, and is quoted by P. Meyer,
_ Chanson de la Croisade contre les Albigeots, II, 379, note 1 (Paris,
1879). For repetitions of this story about Golfier and his lion and
allusions thereto see Meyer, loc. cit., A. Thomas, Romania, XXXIV,
55 ff. (1905), XL, 446ff. (1911) — also, A. Pillet, Bettrdge zur
Kritik der dltesten Troubadours, (Breslau, 1911). The story passed
into the Italian, too. Cp. “Unpublished Manuscripts of Italian Bestiaries”,
by K. Mackenzie, PMLA, XX, 395f. (1905).

Brown had contended that Chrétien's lion came from the Celts.
Cp. his list of lions and guiding beasts in Celtic Otherworld tales,
PMLA, XXV, 688 ff. (1905).

Google

The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain. 81

is correct in crediting Chrétien with the combination of this series
of adventures which make up the greater part of the Yvaim. If
the poem were, indeed, developed from a single source, it would
constitute an exception among the Arthurian romances.

As regards the cardinal episode of the poem, Yvain’s combat
at the spring and his winning of the heroine, it will be objected
here again that in the actual story, as told by Chrétien, there
is no suggestion that Laudine required liberation. This is, of
course, true, yet on no other mdrchen mottf could the somewhat
cynical idea of the easily consoled widow, borrowed from the Roman
de Thébes, be so easily grafted as on this one. In such mérchen
the girl captive passes at once, of course, from the possession of her
captor into that of the hero, as is the case in Chreétien’s poem,
although the treatment of the incident in the former instance is;
of course, purely naive.

W. Foerster, who suggested this Saterpretstion of the story
of Laudine, denies that Chreétien’s source was Celtic. The setting
of the story, however, seems Celtic, and so, in all probability, it
was a Celtic form of this wide-spread motif that Chrétien em-
ployed.1°

The closest. parallel to the capital episode’ of Yvain — the
fountain story — is to be found in the Irish tale, In Gilla Decair,
where we have a fight between the hero and a water-spirit who de-
fends his fountain. This was first pointed out by F. Lot, “Le Chevalier
au Lion: comparaison avec une légende irlandaise’, Romanta, XXI,
67 ff. (1892). Cp. Brown's Iwain, pp. 104 ff. for an analysis of the
tale. In other respects, however, the two stories are unlike. We have
no copy of this tale earlier than the eighteenth century, and so I agree
with Nitze, MPh., VII, 155f., as against G. L. Hamilton, RR, I, 355
and Brown, MPh., IX, 122¢ff. in regarding the story as too late to
afford a safe basis for the study of Yvain origins, although he is wrong
in asserting that we have preserved an Irish translation of Chrétien's
romance, also from the eighteenth century. Cp. Brown, loc. cit.,
p. 120, note 4. For Welsh marvellous springs, see, especially, G. Dottin,
Annales de Bretagne, XXIII, 469 ff. (1907— 8).

Brown, Jwain, pp. 70ff., lays stress on the parallel of a similar
herdsman in the Irish Imram Maelduin (Vi oyage of Maelduin). But
Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXII", 62 (1908), asserts that

Refpecia, Ergdnzungsreihe: 8. 6

Go ogle

82 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

this figure is not peculiar to Celtic Otherworld tales — that it is even
commoner in similar stories in the Germanic languages. I do not find,
however, anything quite similar in Hans Siuts’s Jensettsmotive im
deutschen Volksmdrchen (Leipzig, 1911), which contains a pretty
exhaustive list of everything pertaining to Otherworld conceptions in
specifically German territory. Giants of one sort or another, filling
such réles, are, of course, frequent (cp. ibid., pp. 161ff.), but there
appear to be no herdsmen among them. Only the tale, W 269 (p. 163),
is a possible exception.

Recently, in the Dutch journal, Neophilologus, TI, 122ff.
(1918), “Ober die Jaudinefigur’, H. Sparnaay has argued that the
fountain motif (combat with fountain guardian) was originally separate
and was only later combined with the fairy mistress theme (Laudine
story). If Chrétien was to combine the two, says Sparnaay, he had to
represent the heroine of the latter as an easily consoled widow. This
scholar acknowledges, however, the influence of Jocaste on the cha-
racterization of Laudine.

Sparnaay in his “Laudine bei Crestien und bei Hartmann”, ibid.
IV, 310ff. (1919), has compared in detail the French and German
poems in all that relates to Laudine. He concludes that Hartmann
made changes in his original (Chrétien) for the purpose of elevating
the character of this heroine from the moral point of view, but was
not always successful.

In her “Die ktinstlerische Stoffgestaltung in Chrétien’s Ivain’,
Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXXIX, 3865 ff. (1918), Elise Richter maintains that
Chrétien, in his portrayal of Laudine, tried to adapt the theory of the
amour courtots to everyday conditions — more especially, to conditions
of bourgeois married life. The poem was to contrast with the same
poet’s Lancelot, in which the above-mentioned theory operates in an
ideal world, without any of the restrictions of actual life. The article
is an interesting one, but I question whether Chrétien was consciously
drawing any such contrast.

Miss Richter (pp. 393ff.) also contends that Chrétien purposely
duplicates all the chief features of the narrative in the Yvain, his
object being to heighten the effect: Lunette twice advises Laudine
(ll. 1666ff. and 6586 ff.), Laudine is twice angry with Lunette (Il.
1710ff. and 6760ff.), etc.

Google

Chapter VI.
Date of Chrétien’s Perceval.

1. For the date of composition of Chrétien’s Perceval see es-
pecially A. Birch-Hirschfeld, Die Sage vom Gral, pp. 81f. (Leip-
zig, 1877), G. Paris, Mélanges de Littérature Francaise du Moyen
Age, publiés par Mario Roques, I, 263ff. (Paris, 1910) and W.
Foerster, Kristian von Troyes: Wérterbuch zu seinen saémtlichen
Werken, pp. 38f., 151f. of the Introduction (Halle, 1914). In
view of the considerations which I have urged in my text, I be-
lieve that Foerster, p. 173, is unjustified in declaring that Chré-
tien’s Perceval may just as well have been written about 1190 as
about 1180. In his Die Sage vom Heiligen Gral, 148ff. (Halle,
1898), E. Wechssler has given interesting details concerning the
life and character of Philip of Flanders, in connection with the
question of Chrétien’s relations to him and the date of the Perce-
val — also, a useful list of authorities for Philip’s life — but his
argument that Chrétien must have written his dedication whilst
Philip was regent of France (1180—1182), during the minority
of his godson, Philip II of France, is, as Gaston Paris (loc. ctt.
p- 264, note 1) has remarked, anything but convincing -— as little
so as his previous argument, 146ff., that the poet was a Cancel-
larius or Magister Scholae at the Cathedral of St. Peter in Beau-
vais. The substance of Wechssler’s argument is that Chrétien’s
extravagant laudation of his patron as surpassing even Alexander
the Great could not have been applied to a simple count: Philip
must have occupied the quasi-rcyal position of regent, when he was
extolled in this style, and Chrétien’s assertion that no such tale
was ever told in court roial, he thinks, confirms this supposition.
But Chrétien’s assertion is obviously a mere piece of réclame which
might have been employed anywhere — even in a recitation in the
market-place — and as for the praise lavished on Philip, who has

6*

Google

84 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

ever discovered in the literature of dedications down to the nine-
teenth century any sense of proportion in flattery? Besides, it is
to be remembered, after all, that Philip of Flanders was a power-
ful nobleman. G. Paris remarks justly, too, p. 164, that Chrétien
would doubtless have alluded to the fact, if his patron had, indeed,
occupied such a high position as that of regent of France at the
time that this prologue was written. Paris observes, still further,
that the poet’s silence in regard to Philip’s expedition (‘‘assez
ridicule d’ailleurs’’) to Palestine in 1177 would seem to show that
Chrétien wrote his Perceval before that affair. This, however,
seems to me about as feeble as anything in Wechasler’s argument.

It has been suggested that Gerbert’s statement, Potvin, VI,
212, that Chrétien died before he could finish his Perceval may
be a mere guess based on the incomplete condition of the poem.
But this is not likely. The statement is made in the most positivo
form and appears to be confirmed by the fact that we have no work
from Chrétien’s pen of later date than the Perceval. There is no
ground for believing that he was an old man when he composed
this poem. On the other hand, he had been a prolific writer.
Why, then, after such productivity should he have suddenly stop-
ped writing? There is no parallelism here with the case of the
Lancelot, which, likewise, Chrétien did not finish; for, as Foerster,
loc. cit., p. 152, remarks, another poet, Godefroi de Leigni, did
carry that romance to a conclusion and with Chrétien’s consent.

Google

Chapter VII.
The Elucidation and Bliocadrans-Prologue.

In the Mons MS. of Chrétien’s Perceval and its continuations,
which has been pripted by Potvin, we have a spurious introduc-
tion! of 1282 lines, which consists really of two independent parts:
(a) ll. 1—484, (b) 485—1282. These parts had, doubtless, diffe-
rent authors. It is convenient to call the first, as Miss Weston does,
by the name which it bears in its prose form,? found in most
copies of the 1530 print of the prose Perceval, viz. Elucidation,
and the second by the name which scholars have generally adopted
for it, viz. the Bliocadrans-prologue (Bliocadrans being the name
which is here given to Perceval’s father).

The first part is very obscure, and the title, Hluctdation, af-
fixed to it in the 1530 print, might well strike the reader as
ironical. It would seem to be the introduction to some compi-
lation concerning the Grail which the author was planning, and

* In his review of Potvin’s edition of Chrétien’s Perceval, Revue
‘Critique (No. 35) for Sept. 1. 1866, Paul Meyer accepted ll. 485—
1282 as Chrétien’s, whilst rejecting ll. 1—484. Birch-Hirschfeld,
pp. 69ff., has shown, however, by a detailed examination of language
and style that this, too, is spurious, and his conclusions have been
generally, approved. In Potvin’s edition the genuine prologue of
Chrétien has been relegated to the notes, II, 307 ff.

In the above-mentioned review P. Meyer declares (p. 130) that
of all the MSS. of Chrétien’s poems the one chosen by Potvin (i. e.
the Mons MS.) is least suited to constitute the basis of an edition.
Nutt, p. 8, note, rejects this introduction as spurious, but believes that
it embodies a genuine tradition.

* This prose form (from the edition of 1530) has been reprinted
by Ch. Potvin, Bibliographie de Chrestien de Troyes, pp. 171 ff.,
(Bruxelles, Leipzig, Gand, Paris, 1863).

Google

86 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

we infer that he intended to make it embrace seven branches? —
each corresponding to a separate visit to the Grail Castle by some
knight who participated in the Grail quest. He gives in the pas-
sage just cited hardly intelligible indications as to the subjects
of the individual branches, but only one of them (the reference to the
dead knight in the swan-drawn boat that came to Glamorgan,
Pseudo-Wauchier, ll. 20857ff.) can be positively identified with
an incident in the extant romances. On the other hand, in ILL.
215ff. the writer speaks of Gawain’s visit to the castle of the Fisher
King (here represented as a magician, as nowhere else) and, also,
at considerably greater length, of Perceval’s experiences there. The
reference in the former case is to Gawain’s visit in Chrétien —
only among the sacred objects of the procession we have here in-
cluded certain things (broken sword, denief{r]s, silver cross) that
are not found in Chrétien’s description. It is obvious that the
author knew both Pseudo-Wauchier and Chrétien, and when he
shows departures from the narrative of either in various details,
it is because, like all other Arthurian romancers, he gave the reins
to his own invention, whenever it pleased him. In her article,
‘‘Wauchier de Denain, as a continuator of Perceval and the Pro-
logue of the Mons MS.,” Romania, XX XIII (1904), 333ff., Miss
Weston speaks (p. 334) of the “‘account of Gawain’s visit to the
Grail Castle . . . related in close accordance with the version of

* Instead of “branches”, the writer employs the terms, “sou-
_ viestemens” (ll. 341, 343) — “formes que vevét le conte” (as Potvin
explains) — and “gardes” (ll. 344, 345, 349). But “gardes” pro-
perly applies to the heroes of the branches, — “guardians” of the
Grail — not to the branches themselves, and is actually so used in
ll. 17—22. — F. Lot, Etude sur le Lancelot en prose, p. 285,
note 3, has pointed out that the prose Lancelot is, also, used in the
Elucidation.

* Miss Weston, Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 280, is probably
right in identifying “l’aventure de l’escu” (1. 379) with the magic
shield episode in Wauchier, ll. 31598 ff., but one cannot decide positi-
vely, since the reference is so indefinite. See also Heinzel (p. 80) and
Miss Weston (279f.) for conjectures as to the references to “l’ire et le
perte de Huden” (1. 360) and to Lancelot, “la ou il perdi sa vertu”
(I. 374).

Google

The Elucidation and Bliocadrans-Prologue. 87

Wauchier,” and even of the “close verbal correspondence” in cer-
tain lines, but, as she does virtually always in such instances,
explains this close agreement on the hypothesis of a common source
(her Chastel Orguellous complex). The direct dependence of the
Elucidation on Pseudo-Wauchier here, however, has been recog-
nized by Heinzel (p. 71) and is too plain to require argument.5

The most interesting feature of ll. 1—484 is the account of
how the blight fell upon the land of the Grail Castle: Formerly
there were “‘puceles” in this land who lived in the springs (evi-
dently, water-fairies) and who refreshed travellers with whatever
food they might ask for. Each of them, moreover, bore a cup
of gold. After a while King Amangon® ravished one of these
“puceles’’ and carried off her golden cup. Many of his men
followed his evil example, and the girls retired to the springs
and ceased their benevolent offices. In consequence of the crimes
of Amangon and his men the country fell into a decline, the king
himself had a bad end, the kingdom became a desert, etc., and
the court of the Fisher King could no longer be found. — In the
course of time Arthur’s knights went forth to redress the wrongs

° Cp., too, G. Grober, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIX, 148 (1905) in his
review of Miss Weston'’s book. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt.,
XXXI*, 149 (1907), accepts Miss Weston’s theory that the Elucidation
is derived from her hypothetical Chastel Orguellous complex. When
he regards the allusion to Lancelot and (apparently) to the dog Huden
(in the Tristan legend), as interpolations (p. 148), that is simply be-
cause these allusions conflict with this theory. There is, however, no
ground for considering them interpolations.

* Heinzel has pointed out, p. 78, note 1, that Amangon is a
character in the following romances: Le Bel Inconnu, Meraugis de
Portlesquez, Vengeance Raguidel (as “Amangins’’), Chevalier as Deus
Espees (as king of the land whence no one returns). He should have
included Chrétien’s Erec, 318, 1726, whence the romances that he
cites, doubtless, derived the name (Amaugin, Amangon). The present
author, no doubt, derived the name from one of these romances. —
F. Lot, Romania, XXIV, 325 ff. (1895) identifies “Amargon’”, a variant
of “Amangon” in Meraugis, with “Amorgen”, name of Conall Cernach's
father in the Irish saga of Conchobar. Even if this identification,
however, is correct, it would not affect the question we are now
dealing with.

Google

88 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

of the above-mentioned “‘puceles”’ and to destroy all who had harm-
ed them. As it turned out, they could not discover the ‘“‘puceles’’
whom they sought. They came upon others, however, who were
accompanied by knights, and they engaged in combats with the
latter. In some instances Arthur’s men were killed; in others
they were victorious and sent their vanquished adversaries, in the
approved style of the romances, to report at Arthur’s court. One
of these, named Blihos Bliheris,’ whom Gawain had conquered,
relates at the court that the knights and the girls whom Arthur’s
‘knights had encountered in the forests have sprung from the
dameels that were ravished by King Amangon and his followers,
and that they were destined to wander thus up and down through
the forests and elsewhere, until they discover the Fisher King’s
court. This story of Blihos Bliheris pleased Arthur’s knights
greatly and after a meeting on the subject they go forth in search
of the Fisher King’s court. Gawain and Perceval find it.
There is no need to seek beyond the Elucidation, itself, for
the origin of this tale of how the Grail country fell under an evil
spell. Whether the account of the water-fays was an invention
of the author of the Elucidation or not, the very imperfect welding
of the story with the Grail theme proves that it had originally
no connection with that theme. The writer seems to imply (IL
201 ff.) that the discovery of the Grail would be enough to lift
the spell, but, as Heinzel (p. 71) has observed, when we have,
I]. 225ff. an allusion to Gawain’s undoing of this spell, the author
evidently has in mind here Pseudo-Wauchier (ll. 20238 ff.,
20339ff.), where, after all, it 1s not the mere discovery of the

* In Romania, XXXII, 338f., and Legend of Sir Perceval,
I, 288ff., Miss Weston identifies this person with “Blihis” of 1. 12
and “Bliheris” of Pseudo-Wauchier (]. 19434) in MS. 794 (Bibl. Nat.).
As she points out, Legend of Sir Perceval, 1, 241, note, two MSS.
have “Bleobleheris” in the line from Pseudo-Wauchier. No doubt,
Brugger is right, however, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXI*, 154, in
asserting that we have here a case of substitution — Bliobliheris (and
variants) being the name of an Arthurian knight, who is found in se-
veral romances —, just. as the Mons MS. substitutes in the same line
the name of another Arthurian knight, Brandelis.

Google

The Elucidation and Bltocadrans-Prologue. 89

Grail Castle, but the asking of the question that produces the happy
result. There is, besides, no real logical connection between the
cause of the blight that afflicted the land (the wrong done the
““puceles”’) and the means of its removal (the discovery of the
Grail Castle). |

As we have seen, the author of the Elucidation knew pseudo-
Wauchier, as well as Chrétien. There is no sign, however, that
he knew Chretien’s other continuators, except, perhaps, Wauchier.®
It would be hasty, however, to conclude from this circumstance
with Heinzel (p. 81) that he wrote earlier than Gerbert, to say
nothing of Manessier. His manuscript of the Conte del Graal
may have happened to contain merely Chrétien and the first con-
tinuation.

In ll. 12f. our author cites “Maistre Blihis” as authority
for the assertion that nobody should tell the secret of the Grail
Miss Weston, Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 281f., assumes that this
is a reference to her hypothetical common source of Wauchier (or
Pseudo-Wauchier) and the Elucidation. But, as has been observed
above, other passages make it plain that the author of the Eluci-
dation drew directly from Pseudo-Wauchier, and the present line
is merely another instance of this borrowing. To be sure, the
““Bleheris’’, of Pseudo-Wauchier |]. 19434, is here shortened to
‘Blehis”, but that might be easily due to faulty recollection or
even to arbitrary mutilation of the name to suit the exigencies of
this particular line.®

The second part of the spurious introduction to Chrétien’s
Perceval, viz. \l. 485—1282, is not marred by the obscurities and

* See note above. (p. 86, note 4).

* Similarly, Pseudo-Waucbier, when he wishes to get a rhyme,
does not hesitate to change the name of Gifflet, one of the best known
knights in the Arthurian. romances, to “Giefloi”, “Gyfloi”. Cp. Il.
16259, 19542. Cp., too, the shortening of “Abrioris” to “Brioris”
and “Escavallon” to ‘“Cavallon’’ in Wauchier, and of “Hebron” to
“Bron”, which I have discussed pp. 130f. — In addition to the alter-
natives which I have stated above, there is also the possibility. sug-
gested by Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXX1*, 150, that the-er
in “Bleheris” was represented by a sign of contraction in the MS.
used by the author of the Elucidation, and chanced to be overlooked.

Google

90 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

inconsistencies of Il. 1—484; on the other hand, it is not bright-
ened by the same gleams of the romantic spirit. It is a perfectly
commonplace account of how Bliocadrans, Perceval’s father, was
slain in a tournament and of how his wife thereafter, with all
the retinue of a feudal dame, moved to the Waste Forest, her pur-
pose being to bring up there in seclusion and security her son,
Perceval, her only child, to whom she had given birth only a
few days after Bliocadrans’s departure for the fatal tournament.
She tries to rear him in the belief that there are no houses and
people except those that he sees about him in the Waste Forest,
When he is old enough, she permits him to hunt goats and stags
in the forests, but warns him against men clad in iron — for she
avers they are devils.

This so-called Bliocadrans-prologue is the invention of a third-
rate poet who wishes to explain how Perceval and his widowed
mother came to be living in the Waste Forest, as we find them
at the beginning of Chrétien’s Perceval. The Tristan poems and
Chrétien’s Cliges, not to mention other romances, might have sug-
gested to him the idea of supplying such an introduction con-
cerning the hero’s parents. The author knew nothing of Perceval
except what he found in Chretien, and there is not a trace of folk-
lore sources in the whole composition.'°

*° The name of Perceval's father here, Bliocadrans, is puzzling,
as is the case with many Arthurian names. It is probably, like
Bliobleheris (Bliobleris, Blioberis), ultimately, of Welsh origin.
J. Loth, Contributions @ [Etude des Romans de la Table Ronde,
pp. 36f. (Paris, 1912), connects the latter with an hypothetical Old
Welsh Bled-cobret, which is the same as Bled-cuurit of the Book
of Llandaff (elcventh century) and Blegobred (Bredgabred) of Geoffrey
of Monmouth, DI, 19. The corresponding Modern Welsh form is
Blegwryd (Blegywrd) or Bleddgwryd. On the other hand, in Y
Cymmrodor, X, 219, note 1 (1891) and XI, 45f. (1892), E. Philli-
more identifies the forms just enumerated (and the Bledkenred of
Annales Cambriae, anno 1018) not with Bloberis, but with Blio-
cadrans, the hypothetical Old Welsh original form which he postulates
being Bledcabrat (not Bledcobrit). Phillimore’s derivation, however, does
not appear to me satisfactory. Bliocadrans has probably suffered corruption
at the hands of the scribes, until the true form is no longer recognizable.

Google

Chapter VIII.
Miss Weston’s Gawain=Complex.

In her Legend of Str Perceval, I, ch. VI—X, Mise Weston
develops a vast speculation concerning the sources of the contin-
uation (or continuations) of Chrétien’s Perceval from the pomt
where he left off down through 1. 34394, with which Wauchier’s
contribution to the Conte del Graal ends. She is inclined (p. 215),
as we have seen, to ascribe to the copyists what precedes the epi-
sode of Arthur’s war against Brun de Branlant (which begins
l. 11597) and everything (barring interpolations) from there on
through 1. 34934 to Wauchier. The main sources of these ad-
ditions (from the conclusion of Chrétien through 1. 34934), in her
opinion, are two (p. 178) — both, of course, purely hypothetical
— 1. “a group of short episodic poems,” which she designates
“the Chastel Orguellous group,” 2. “an elaborate poem of con-
siderable literary merit,” which she designates the ‘‘Chastel Mer-
veilleus.’’ Both were “independent versions of the Gawain legend’”’,
and the Perceval story, before Chrétien wrote his poem, had already
been contaminated with both. This theory of Miss Weston’s is,
of course, intimately connected with her idea that Chrétien, whose
romances are the earliest of the Arthurian cycle that we possess,
came after the period of the really great Arthurian romances,
all of which, in her opinion, have perished. Miss Weston is un-
able to produce-a single item of objective evidence in support of
this theory of hers concerning the sources of the continuations which
I have attributed to Pseudo-Wauchier and Wauchier respectively,
and, for my own part, I regard the whole speculation as base-
less and unnecessary. Though restricted by considerations of space,
I will endeavor to deal with the main points of Miss Weston’s
theory. It will be more convenient to discuss No. 2 first. 1. The
section of the Conte del Graal for which her hypothetical Chastel

Google

92 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Merveslleus is here supposed to be, especially, the source consists
of ll. 6125—11596 and deals with Gawain’s visit to the fairy-
castle, where he finds his mother and sister and Arthur's mother,
and the incidents connected therewith. Chrétien began this epi-
sode, but he broke off in the middle of it (1. 10601), and it was
completed by some one else. This continuator would, of course,
complete it according to the indications of Chrétien’s unfinished
portion and there is no need to conjure up any imaginary source.!
Within the lines 10602—11596, as, indeed, throughout the di-
vision of the Conte del Graal which has been commonly assigned
to Pseudo-Wauchier, the MSS. show some considerable variants;
but when Miss Weston wishes to see in certain of these variants
(p. 198) remnants of her hypothetical Chastel Mervetlleus poem,
this is, on the face of it, purely subjective, and even if we should
concede that her genealogy of the MSS. is correct, the cross agree-
ments between different versions (longer and shorter) which she
speaks of (p. 213) would merely show the contamination of dif-
ferent lines of manuscript tradition — one of the commonest pheno-
mena that editors of mediaeval texts have to deal with.?

As regards the supposed coincidences (pp. 210ff.), between
Wolfram’s Parzival and ll. 10602ff. of the Conte del Graal, they

> Miss Weston rightly rejects G. Paris's suggestion (Manuel,
p. 105) that Chrétien’s first continuator used notes left by Chrétien
which indicated how the story should develop. As Brugger, Zs. f.
frz. Spr. u. Litt. XXXI*, 141, well says, this method of composition
is not mediaeval, but modern. |

* I am discussing here merely the relation of Chrétien's conti-
nuator to this incident of the so-called Chastel Merveilleus. The
question of Chrétien’s own sources for the incident is another matter.
In my Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanii, p. LII (Gottingen
and Baltimore, 1913), I have pointed out that in this final episode
Chrétien seems to have used, inter alia, a lost French romance on the
subject of Gawain’s youth. This hypothetical romance, however, could
not have been of popular origin, since it contained conceptions borrowed
from Geoffrey of Monmouth and the legend of Pope Gregory. The
marvellous castle, moreover, unquestionably has Other-world features,
but there is no reason to believe that before Chrétien Gawain was
connected with this conception.

Google

Miss Weston’s Gawain-Compler. 93

arc so slight as to be negligible. When two writers are completing
an unfinished episode on indications furnished by that episode,
there are bound to be some coincidences in their respective works.
If Martin, as Miss Weston notes (p. 212, note 1), in his edition
of Wolfram, merely records these parallels without comment, it is,
no doubt, because he very properly attached no significance to
them.
: Since the basis of her theory concerning this hypothetical
Chastel Merveilleus poem, as set forth in her Chapter VII, which
I have just examined, has so little solidity, there is no need of
going into her more hazardous speculations in Chapter VIII as
to still other drafts on this imaginary poem which she supposes
to have been made in the continuation of Chretien’s Perceval.

2. According to Miss Weston’s hypothesis, the Gawain ad-
ventures of ll. 15795—21917 (end of Pseudo-Wauchier) and Il.
31520—33 754 (point in Wauchier where the narrative turns to
Perceval’s adventure at the Grail castle) are derived from the
““Chastel Orguellous group” of episodic poems. “‘This group,”
she says (p. 178), “represents, I believe, the earliest stratum of
the Arthurian romantic tradition we as yet possess, and may not
improbably go back as far as the tenth century.”

It is a mistake, in the first place, for Miss Weston to group
together ll. 15975ff., on the one hand, and ll. 31520ff., on the
other. They do not belong in the same category, properly speak-
ing, the difference between the two being in conformity with the
usual difference between Pseudo-Wauchier and Wauchier. The
passage, ll. 31520ff., is really made up of threadbare Arthurian
commonplaces — the Little Knight who defends the shield that
hangs on a tree by a fountain, Gawain incognito at the tourna-
ment etc.2 On the other hand, whatever one may think as to
the sources of ll. 15795ff., we have here at any rate, incidents
of a distinctive character, which are, besides, admirably told. Take,

* The Little Knight, with whom we may compare Guivret le
Petit in Chrétien's Erec, defends the fountain, ll. 32 130 ff. (here shield
by the fountain), like Chrétien's Yvain; the Pensive Knight (ll. 32 906 ff.)
is plunged in revery about his amie, like Chrétien's Perceval, and so on.

Google

94 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

for example, Gawain’s narrative (IL 15885ff.) of his affair with
Brandelis’s sister and the dramatic manner — hard to parallel
elsewhere in Arthurian romance — in which he gradually reveals
the strange story only under constant pressure from Arthur (Il.
17011 ff., 17187ff.). Really, it is only in {its relation to
ll. 15795—21917 (all in the Pseudo-Wauchier section) that Miss
Weston’s theory requires discussion.

In the case of these lines, there is in ll. 16626ff., as Miss
Weston, p. 238, has noted, an appeal, it would seem, to a defi-
nite source. The author tells how Arthur took his companions
along with him on the expedition to Chastel Orguellous, but, in
the midst of his narrative, says:

Desor est li romans trop lons,
Mais je le vos voel abreger.
II. jours errerent sans mangier
C’onques ne peurent liu trover
U il eussent .i. disner
Jusqu’el vergier des sepoutures
U on trueve les aventures;

La mangierent avoec enclus
Dont il i avoit. XXX. u plus,
La mervelle del cimentire

Ne me loist ore mie dire
Dont les sepoutures estoient
N’establissement qu'il trovoient
Des enclus, car trop longement
I metroie, mon ensient.

The first line of this quotation, by itself, would not mean
much, for the romancers often speak of their own works as “li
romans”’ etc., but in connection with what follows it would seem
that the writer is really here referring to an external source. If
so, that source, however, was, doubtless, a regular Arthurian ro-
mance, with the siege of the Chastel Orguellous as the main sub-
ject — that is to say, it was a formal literary production like
Chrétien’s romances, and not an episodic poem, or group of epi-
sodic poems, such as Miss Weston supposes, that had: lived in oral
tradition for centuries. Certainly, the narrative that follows in
Peeudo-Wauchier obviously derives one of its cardinal incidents

Google

in a

Miss Weston’s Gawain-Complez. 95

from Chrétien’s Perceval, viz. that which forms the starting-point
for the whole story of Gawain’s affair with Brandelis’s sister
(ll. 16954ff.). He finds her alone in a tent and, despite her
warnings of the consequences, deflowers her. This is plainly imi-
tated from the incident in Chrétien’s Perceval, ll. 1829ff., about
the amie (in a tent) of Orguellous de la Lande, whom Perceval
kisses by force, despite similar warnings — only in Pseudo-Wau-
chier Gawain actually justifies the suspicions expressed by the
jealous lover in the former case (ll. 5031ff.) and the combat that
ensues develops differently in the two instances. The only question
here is whether the borrowing is due to Pseudo-Wauchier or his
source. The question is not of the first importance, but for my
own part, I think that it was probably Pseudo-Wauchier, him-
self, that made the combination, for in the cases where we can
control with precision his use of sources, actually extant, viz. in
the case of the Bel Inconnu episode (based on Li Biaus Descon-
neus) and the incident of the swan-drawn boat (from Le Chevalier
au Cygne) we do not find him following his original through any
long stretch of narrative.

It is to be observed that, after all, there is not a great deal
to connect this Chastel Orguellous episode with popular tradition,
even in respect to ultimate origin. The castle of Brandelis, where
most of the action develops, is given fairy-tale features (the girls
by the fountain who disappear so suddenly, the rich feast laid
in the hall, yet no one visible etc.),“ in order to render the setting
more romantic, but otherwise there is nothing supernatural about
the story, and above all, the effort of Brandelis’s sister to induce

* Arthur’s revery (Jl. 15892ff.) over Gifflet’s vacant place and
his cutting himself heedlessly with the knife, whilst plunged in thought,
may belong to folk-lore. The passage has been imitated in the prose
Lancelot, Il, 272, and in Lt Atre Perillos, ll. 298 ff. (Herrig's
Archiv, XLII, 151).

It should be remarked that Chrétien (cp. his Perceval, ll. 6099 ff.)
planned an episode which was to deal with an adventure of Gifflet’s
at the Chastel Orguellous, but, of course, never came to it. This, in
itself, was an invitation (so to speak) to later romancers to make it
the theme of their inventions.

Google

96 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

her brother and her lover (Gawain) to stop their duel by bringing
forth the little child of Gawain and herself — the fruit of the
violence done her by Gawain which has so enraged her brother
against him — is obviously not of folklore origin. Still further,
the incident of Le Riche Sodoier (ll. 18997ff.), which is the
culmination of the whole Chastel Orguellous episode, evidently has
no basis in folklore, for we have here a most fantastic exhibition
of the chivalric courtesy which formed a part of the French ideal
of conduct in the aristocratic society of the time. Nothing could
be more artificial or further removed from primitive simplicity.
After the adventure of the Chastel Orguellous has been dis-
posed of with the liberation of Gifflet and Lucan and the ac-
ceptance of Arthur as his suzerain by Le Riche Sodoier (Il.
19355 ff.), we have next (ll. 19735ff.) the Grail adventure. As
I have elsewhere remarked, the starting-point — illustrating the
power of Gawain’s courtesy as contrasted with Kay's rudeness —
is imitated, beyond dispute, from the similar incident in Chretien’s
Perceval, ll. 5796ff., where Perceval plays the role that is here
played by the unknown, wounded knight. In the further narrative
of Gawain’s journey to avenge this strange knight and of his stay
at the Grail castle the author employs folk-tale motifs (the Black
Hand in the Forest Chapel, the Grail which supplies food etc.),
but, in dealing with matters that involved the supernatural, this:
was, of course, necessary. There is no reason, however, to doubt
that our poet was the first to combine these particular motéfs.
Miss Weston, Romania, XXXIII 342 (1904) and Legend of
Sir Perceval, I, 282ff., 323 (1906), makes much of the supposed
relation of certain Middle English Gawain poems to the first oon-
tinuation of Chrétien’s Perceval, as evidence of the earlier exis-
tence of the episodic poems which she postulates as Bleheri’s source.

* Gawain vanquishes this character, who begs him, however, to
pretend that he (Gawain) is vanquished and to present himself to his
(Le Riche Sodoier's) amie under that pretence, because he fears lest
she may die, if she hears the truth about her lover's defeat. Gawain
consents and surrenders his sword to the girl. Arthur, believing that
Gawain has been really vanquished, is plunged in woe.

Google

Miss Weston’s Gawain-Complez. 97

The Middle English poems which she names are: 1. Str Gawayne
and the Grene Knyghte, 2. Golagros and Gawayne, 3. Awntyrs of
Arthur at the Tarne Wathelyne, 4. The Weddynge of Syr Ga-
wayne, 5. The Jeaste [i. e. Geste] of Syr Gawayne, 6. Syr Libe-
aus Desconus. The authors of these poems, she thinks, drew not
from the Chrétien continuation, but from the ultimate sources of
that continuation.*®

We may drop No. 6 at once from the discussion, for as Miss
Weston, herself, says, it stands ‘“‘apart from the collection” [1. e.
of Gawain episodes represented in the continuation to Chrétien ].
It is a mere English redaction of the Old French romance of the
same name (or, as some scholars believe, of a romance which was
the latter’s source), and its only connection with the Chretien con-
tinuation is that they both show use of this romance, which 1s,
of course, not episodic.

As far as the other romances are concerned, it is to be ob-
served that only the first antedates the fifteenth century — which
is pretty late for independent derivation from hypothetical lost
French poems of the middle of the twelfth century (at the la-

* Besides the poems cited by Miss Weston, there are others in
Middle English with Gawain as the hero. 1. The Turke and Gawin
(preserved only in a MS. of the sixteenth century, but composed
probably in the latter part of the fourteenth century). 2. Syre Ga-
wene and the Carle of Carelyle (fourteenth or fifteenth century).
3. The Grene Knight. No. 1 (in this list) probably is not based
on a French original (cp. Kittredge, p. 280); No. 2 is a mere adap-
tation of Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knight (cp. ibid. p. 134).
No. 2, as Kittredge, p. 95, thinks, has a French source, which is also
the source of the Chevalier ar Epée (thirteenth century). The examples,
however, which he gives, pp. 257 ff., show how widespread the motif
was, and its relation to the Chevalier ar Epée must remain doubtful.
Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXI*, 149ff, accepts Miss
Weston’s theory, except that he derives these poems from the hypothe-
tical Gawain compilation of Bleheri. Despite the authorities, however,
to which Brugger appeals (p. 149), Miss Weston is right in asserting
that these English poems are from different times and places. One is
Scotch, others are North Midland, still others, South Midland. Some
‘are of the fourteenth century, others of the fifteenth.

Relperia, Ergiingungsreihe: 9. 4

Google

98 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

test). Nos. 2 (a Scottish poem) and 5 are undoubtedly based on
stories which we find in Pseudo-Wauchier, and the editors have
drawn the natural conclusion that Pseudo-Wauchier was their
source. There is not the slightest reason to reject their judgment
in this matter. Miss Weston, herself, remarks (p. 283) that the
adventure of Kay and the Spit in no. 2 is “related in close agree-
‘ment with the version of the Perceval’ and that the events before
Chastel Orguellons ‘agree’ closely with the French text.” If the
conclusion of no. 5 shows a departure from Pseudo-Wauchier, this
is simply an example of the liberty which poets in the Middle
Ages, as in all other ages, permitted themselves. The only reason
which Miss Weston gives for denying a relation of direct depen-
dence on Pseudo-Wauchier in the case of these poems she states
in the following words, where she is speaking of the whole group
of Middle English poems named above: “Gawain is undoubtedly
a far older Arthurian hero than Perceval, Lancelot or Tristan.
A group of poems which regard him as the exclusive protagonist
[i. e. the Middle English group | is prima facie likely to be earlier
than a similar group in which he shares the honours with one or
more of these knights.”. Apart from the fact that “‘a similar
group” is an incorrect description’ of Pseudo-Wauchier’s con-
tinuation, this a prioré generalization has little weight in the ba-
lance as compared with the “close agreement’? which she her-
self acknowledges in the case of no. 2.

The only point which Miss Weston mentions (pp. 284f.) as
connecting no. 3 with the continuation of Chrétien is that in the
former Gawain is represented as temporarily in possession of Gal-
loway. He receives it as a fief from Arthur, but later exchanges
it with its proper ruler who has lost it through conquest. “This
is an interesting testimony to the tradition of Gawain’s association
with Galloway preserved in the Chastel Merveilleus story,’’ she
observes (p. 285). But the extant romances were amply suffi-
cient to suggest such a connection with Galloway’? (“‘Galvoie”’,

7 In the Gesta Regum Angliae of William of Malmesbury (who

wrote in the first half of the twelfth century), in connection with the
well-known description of Gawain’s tomb, it is said of him (Book LII,

Google

Miss Weston's Gawain-Complex 99

““Gauvoie” of the Old French romances) as we find here. In
Erec (ll. 6815ff., 6827ff.) we already find Gawain appearing in
company with the King of Galloway, and in the Perceval (ll.
7966ff.), despite warnings, he undertakes to penetrate into that
land. The “Galvoie” of this latter poem has indisputably attributes
of the Otherworld, but there is every likelihood that Chrétien was
the first to endow it with these mysterious features. In any event,
the episode* in which Galloway is named in No.-3 is a perfectly
commonplace one, illustrating the courtesy of Arthur’s court: the
dominions of the lord of Galloway are returned to him, notwith-
standing his defeat at Gawain’s hands. Chrétien could have easily
supplied the author of this romance with the name of the land
and the suggestion of the hostility of its lords. This author would
be all the more disposed to use this particular name from the fact,
which has often been observed, that he evidently had a close ac-
quaintance with the neighborhood of Carlisle, from which Gallo-
way is not far distant. The alliteration of the verse would offer
a still further temptation to employ the name in the story with
Gawain’s.

There remains only no. 1. But according to the careful in-
vestigation of G. L. Kittredge, op. ctt., pp. 38ff., in the part

under the year 1087): “Regnavit in ea parte Britanniag, quad’ oN
Walweitha (i. e. Galloway) vocatur.” The passage is, doubtless, an
interpolation (based on the romances), but it is an eaxly. one. In
Romanische Forschungen, XXIX, 320, G. Baist. interpreted bogua~in
bogue de Galvore (Potvin's edition of Chrétien's Perceval, 1/ 7966,
as representing bog (= quagmire), which comes from the Trisli, phd
as a mark of Celtic origin in this episode. In his “Keltisnius ip’ der
Monser Percevalhandschrift”, Zs. f. rom. Ph. XXXVI, 614 -(1912),
Foerster, however, pointed out that the bogue of Potvin’s MS. was
merely a corruption of bone (a frequent variant for borne = boundary
in Old French) — very likely through bogne — and that MS. 794
(B. N.) actually has bone here. For the bones (or bornes) Artu in
Old French literature, cp. R. Weeks, Mélanges offerts a M. Emile
Picot, Membre de l'Institut, par ses amis et ses éléves, I, 209 ff.
(2 vols., Paris, - 1913).

* The first part of the poem is based on a legend concerning
Pope Gregory: The Trental of Gregory.

7*

» Google

100 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

which he accepts as alone connected originally with Gawain (the
_ Beheading Game), this romance has the same source as the Livre
de Caradoc, so that it does not testify to any additional episodic
poem concerning that hero.

As regards Miss Weston’s ‘Gawain legend,’ then, which, it
seems, she would date back to the tenth century, neither here in her
Legend of Sir Perceval nor in her Legend of Sir Gawain (with its
misleading title) has she brought forward any proof that it ever
existed. Gawain is extolled in Geoffrey of Monmouth as a valiant
nephew of Arthur. From Geoffrey, or, more probably, from his
translator, Wace, Chrétien and the other romance-writers took their
cue, and it is to them, exclusively, as we may reasonably conclude,
that the character owes his further adventures and his fame. We
have no early “short episodic poems’ about Gawain and no evi-
dence that there ever were any.

Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., RXXI?, 127ff., 148, re-
gards the adventures related of Perceval in the Chrétien conti-
nuations, as having been brought into connection with that hero
in these continuations for the first time. But the same thing is,
no doubt, true of the adventures that are imputed to Gawain in the
episodes under discussion, although Brugger (p. 159) would make
the hypothetical Bleheri (Bledri) responsible for this.

In connection with her theory which I have been discussing,
Mise Weston (p. 177) expresses the view that it is strange that
the writer who undertook to complete Chrétien’s Perceval, “‘in-
stead of returning to the original subject matter of the poem,
the story of Perceval, confined himself instead to that of Gawain.”
But, aside from what I have already said on the general dis-
regard of conformity which is exhibited by the writers of Ar-
thurian romance, it is to be observed here that, after all, in Chre-
tien’s own poem the space occupied by Gawain’s adventures does
not fall far short of that which is devoted to the adventures of
Perceval® — only no visit to the Grail castle had been related of

* Gawain is so prominent that Heinrich von dem Tirlin, in Diss
Crone, either mistook him for the Grail hero or wilfully transferred

Google

Miss Weston’s Gawain-Complex 101

the former, although it was probably Chrétien’s intention to intro-
duce, sooner or later, such an episode into his poem. For the
continuator to describe a visit of Gawain to the mysterious castle
would have, then, of course, the advantage of novelty. The cir-
cumstances just enumerated, combined with the fact that Chre-
tien broke off his work in the midst of a Gawain episode, would
give a sufficient answer to the question which Miss Weston raises.

The fact, too, that the Pseudo-Wauchier section shows such
extensive interpolation or redaction, as compared with the other
continuations of Chrétien, can, I believe, be, also, satisfactorily ex-
plained. This first continuation was, of course, recognized as such,
and it was not protected from alteration by a distinguished name,
as Chrétien’s own poem was. Copyists or other persons, therefore,
would not hesitate to introduce what they considered improvements,
if they saw fit to do so. By the time that Wauchier and the rest
made their additions, to continue Chrétien’s Perceval was no longer
a novelty, and, indeed, such additions might be looked upon very
properly as really a mere continuation of his continuator (or con-
tinuators), so that the incentive to interpolation was naturally
weaker. |

In rejecting the theory of Miss Weston which I have out-
lined above, it will have been observed, of course, that I make
no assertion that the sources of Pseudo-Wauchier and Wauchier
did not include, to some extent, lost Arthurian romances. We
have seen that both writers made use of an extant romance of
this cycle, Li Biaus Descouneus (Le Bel Inconnu) by Renaut de
Beaujeu, and that the former borrowed from Le Chevalier au Cygne |
his swan-drawn boat (ll. 20857ff.). We have seen, too, in ll.
16626ff. a reference to a lost source. Otherwise, as far as I know, no
convincing case has been made out so far for any definite borrowing
from a lost romance in these two continuations. Brugger, Zs. f.
frz. Spr. u. [itt., XXXI?, 127, believes that he can prove that
Perceval’s stag-adventure (ll. 22393ff.) was derived from such a
lost romance (of which Perceval, however, was not the hero). But

him to that réle. Cp. on the subject G. Paris, Histoire Littéraire,
XXX, 44. 7

Google

102 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

the hunt for a marvellous stag, like the castle of the fairy-mistress,
who imposes the execution of a task as the price of her love, with
which it is here combined, is an old motsf,° and I see no reason
to suppose that Wauchier was not just as capable as Brugger’s
hypothetical author of effecting the combination and interweaving
with it, still further, the motif of the self-playing chessmen. Men-
nung" pointed out many years ago that the incident in the stag-
hunt tale when the “puciele de malaire’’ (1. 22604) carried off
Perceval’s ‘‘braket” (lent by his fairy mistress) and refused to
surrender it was borrowed from Le Bel Inconnu, i. e. Li Biaua
Desconneus (ll. 1291ff. of G. P. Williams’ edition), where the
girl, Helie, does the same thing with the “braket’’ of Orguillous
de la Lande. This seizure of the dog is an essential feature of
the whole episode, and tends to show that Wauchier was the first
to combine the motifs that make up the complex of incidents in
question.

The group of strange incidents which are connected with the
name of Caradoc in the Pseudo-Wauchier section of the Conte del
Graal and which make up the so-called Livre de Caradoc are of
a very different character from the Gawain episodes which surround
them. Unlike the latter they bear plainly the stamp of folk-tale
origin, not merely in occasional details, but in overy essential parti-
cular. This Lsvre de Caradoc, however, not only does not relate

** Cp. the very full collection of examples in Carl Pschmadt’s
Die Sage von der verfolgten Hinde (Greifswald diss, 1911), and
-M. B. Ogle’s “The Stag-Messenger Episode”, American Journal of
Philology, XXXVU, 387ff. (1916). Ogle, who discusses the episode
we are here considering, pp. 398f., opposes the hypothesis of Celtic
origin for this motif of the marvellous hind or stag.

Miss Weston's idea (p. 117) that the stag here is a woman
transformed is rightly condemned by Brugger, in the article cited
above, pp. 128f., and Pechmadt, p. 107, note 3, condemns her similar
interpretation (p. 113) of the lay, T'yolet.

** Albert Mennung: Der Bel Inconnu des Renaut de Beaujeu
in seinem Verhdltniss zum Lybeaus Disconus, Carduino und W-
galois, p. 17 (Halle diss. 1890).

Google

Miss Weston’s Gawain-Complex 108

to Gawain, but it is generally admitted to be an interpolation,"
so that we need not discuss it here.

** Cp. G. Paris, Romania, XXVIII, 230f., note (1899), Miss
Weston, Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 309 ff. (1906), G. L. Kittredge,
A Study of Gawain and the Green Knight, p. 26 (1916). Kitt-
redge (p. 224) does not believe that the head-cutting challenge incident
was ever connected in Celtic tradition with Caradoc. It belonged, he
believes, exclusively to Cuchullin. Even literary tradition, however,
I would remark, is not very consistent in these matters, as we see
from the history of this very incident in Old French literature, where
it is ascribed in different works to Caradoc, Gawain, and Lancelot,
respectively. Accordingly, the Celtic treatments of the theme may
have displayed the same inconsistency. In any event, when Kittredge
supposes (p. 50) that Gawain was the hero of the incident in the
sources of the Livre de Caradoc which he reconstructs, this does not
strike me as very convincing. It is in the natural order of things that
the great hero of Arthurian romance, Gawain, should annex the achie-
vements of minor personages, but, it is not so easy to understand why
one of the less important’ heroes of Celtic saga, Caradoc, should first
have these Celtic stories attached to his name, many years after they
had passed into French literature.

R. Heinzel, Uber die franzdsischen Gralromane (pp. 32¢t.), is
the only scholar, as far as I am aware, who denies that the Livre
de Caradoc is interpolated. He shows very clearly the chronological
inconsistencies which its introduction produces in the narrative, but
argues that the chronological inconsistencies of this same continuation
of Chrétien are just as great in the case of the Bel Inconnu episode.
On the whole, however, the evidence supports the generally accepted
conclusion with regard to the Livre de Caradoc being an interpolation.

In concluding this excursus on the sources of the continuations
to Chrétien’s Perceval, I will recall to the reader that G. Baist,
Parzival und der Gral, p. 39, numbered among these sources his
Liber Glastoniensis (hypothetical source of Perlesvaus, etc.), through
which, according to his theory, the Grail story first became Christianized.
I have discussed this adversely below.

Google

Chapter IX.
The Didot=Perceval.

The so-called Didot-Perceval is preserved in only two MSS.:
1. the Didot MS., now in the Bibliothéque Nationale, Nouvelles
_ Acquisitions, 4166 (dated 1301); and 2. MS. E. 49 of the Bib-
lioteca Estense in Modena (latter part of the 13th century. Cp.
Miss Weston, II, 6). The first of these MSS. (formerly the only
one known — hence the current title of the romance) was printed
by E. Hucher in Le Sasnt Graal, I, 415 ff. (1874); the second,
which offers a much superior text, by Miss J. L. Weston, The
Legend of Sir Perceval, II, 9ff. (1909).1 The Didot-Perdceval, as
intimated above, has been the centre of an unusual amount of dis-
cussion, owing to the fact that in both of the above-mentioned
MSS. it follows on the prose rendering of Robert de Boron’s Merlin,
which, in turn, in each of these MSS., is preceded by the prose
rendering of his Joseph. Moreover, indications within the ro-
mance itself make it evident that the Didot-Perceval was intended
to continue this series.?. E. Hucher, the first editor of the romance,
left the question of authorship open, I,.375, although subsequent-
ly he always refers to it as if it were Robert de Boron’s work; but
inasmuch as Robert at the end of the Joseph announces his pur-
pose of telling the story of Alein ‘‘et ques oirs de li peut issin”
(1. 3467), it was natural that many Arthurian scholars should

* A fragment of the romance is, also, preserved in a MS. of the
prose 7'ristan, but has no particular value. Miss Weston has printed
it, ibid., II, 118 ff.

* It is not a continuation, however, of the Merlin, especially, as
Sommer (Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXXII, 323) asserts. One has only to
compare it with the genuine Merlin continuations, viz. the Vulgate,
the Huth-Merlin, the one in MS. 337, to see that this is not so.
These carry on the narrative of Robert's Merlin, as the Didot-—
Perceval does not. |

Google

=

The Didot-Perceval 105

have regarded the Didot-Perceval as a prose rendering of the (hypo-
thetical) lost verse form of the continuation of the Joseph and
Merlin thus announced. So, for example, G. Paris, Huth-Merlin,
I, p. ix, et passim, speaks of the Perceval (i. e. Didot-Perceval),
without qualification, as Robert’s work. See, too, his Manuel,
p- 109, as well as G. Gréber in his Grundriss der Romantschen
Philologie, II, 997 and F. Lot, Lancelot, pp. 182ff. But apart
from the fact that in neither MS. is Robert named as the author,
there is satisfactory internal evidence that he is not responsible for
the romance.

The main arguments in favor of accepting the Didot-Perceval
as the prose rendering of an hypothetical poem* by Robert de
Boron have been presented by A. Birch-Hirschfeld, Die Sage vom
Gral, 180 ff. (1877), and E. Wechssler, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIII,
144ff. (1899). These arguments rest on what the two scholars
in question regard as the numerous points of agreement between
the narrative of the Didot-Perceval and that of Robert’s Joseph
and Merlin. Wechssler distinguishes between supposed references
of the Perceval (of the Didot MS.) to the Joseph, Merlin, and
Mort Arthur, on the one hand, and of the Joseph, Merlin, and
Mort Arthur to the Perceval (of the Didot MS.), on the other, and
he ascribes to agreements of the first kind greater force than
to agreements of the latter. Leaving aside, however, the assump-

tion that the Mort Arthur of the Didot MS. is by Robert, I will

* There is no certain indication in Robert's authentic work that
he intended to give the name “Perceval” to Alein’s heir, who was to
succeed Bron as Grail-keeper, or even that he conceived of “li tierz
hons” (1.2790) as a knight. Most scholars assume this, it would
seem, because they believe that in the pre-Chrétien oral Grail legend
of their theory the Grail hero already bore that name. As W. W.
Newell, Journal of American Folklore, X, 221, however, says,
Robert's poem is religious, and in the style of the Christian apocrypha,
so that there is no likelihood that he would have represented “li tierz
hons’’ as a knight of the Round Table. Cp., too, what I have said
above I, 145, note 36, concerning the passage in the prose rendering
of Robert's Merlin (Huth-Merlin, I, 98 and Sommer, II, 56). The
unnamed knight of that passage is usually identified with Perceval,

Google

106 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

say that there is really nothing to choose between the two classes
of references; for a writer who was supplying a continuation to
Robert’s unfinished work would, of course, not only exploit his
predecessor’s actual narrative, but would develop into incidents any
hints which he might observe in that work as available for use
in the continuation. As a matter of fact, the union of the prose
rendering of Chrétien’s Lancelot (Sommer’s Vulgate Version of
the Arthurian Romances, IV, 155ff.) with the narrative that pre-
cedes it in the huge prose Lancelot romance is much smoother
than 1s the case with the Perceval of the Didot and Modena MSS.
in its relation to the branches to which it is joined, and yet we
know that in that instance the parts in question are certainly by
different authors.

On the other hand, there 1s as has been stated in the text above,
a fundamental conflict between the conceptions of the Didot-Perce-
val and Robert’s Joseph and Merlin — “ein Widerspruch aller-
dings von tiefschneidender Art,” as Wechssler, p. 147, himeelf,
acknowledges — which alone would be sufficient to disprove the
contention that the Didot-Perceval is a poem of Robert’s in prose
dress — viz. that, contrary to the declarations of Robert’s Merlin
(Huth-Merlin, I, 98 and Sommer, II, 56) that the person who is
to fill the vacant seat at the Round Table must first have filled
the vacant seat at the Grail Table (cp. Joseph, ll. 2790ff.), Perce-
val takes the seat at the Round Table at the very beginning of
this romance (p. 21 of Miss Weston’s text), before he has started
on his quest for the Grail. The awkward attempt to identify Round
Table and Grail Table, which Robert keeps clearly apart, though
he models the former after the latter, is another sign that we
have before us here a work that is not from his hand; and g0, toc,
with the warning (unheeded, and, as the event proves, unnecessary )
which Arthur addresses to Perceval, the Grail-hero.# I may add

“ If we accept as genuine the passage preserved in MSS. 747
(B. N.) and Add. 32125 (B. M.) at the end of the Merlin which I
have quoted below, this does not accord with the theory that the
Didot-Perceval is based on a poem of Robert's, for the Didot-Per-
ceval does the opposite of what is there stated, inasmuch as it does

Google

The Didot-Perceval 107

that the episode of the tourney (pp. 17ff.), where Perceval appears
in the commonplace role of the galant knight of Arthur's niece,
Elainne (Aleine), is simply inconceivable in a work of the mystic
Robert de Boron. To throw back the responsibility of the episode
on the source is unavailing, for poets do not wholly renounce the
power of selection in dealing with their sources, and Robert would
surely not have taken the trouble to turn into his heavy and la-
borious verse a piece of trivial galanterie like this, which was so
foreign to his own genius. The same thing is true of the whole
complex of episodes — magical chessboard, stag-hunt, and tomb-
knight — of which we shall hear later. Indeed, it would be diffi-
cult to imagine anything more different from the ultra-romantic
Didot-Perceval than Robert’s Joseph, which is based mainly on
Christian legend, or his Merlin, which is pseudo-historical.5

I may remark that the careless adjustment of the beginning
of the Didot-Perceval to Robert’s Joseph and Merlin reminds one
of the similar exhibition of negligence and clumsiness on the part
of the author of the conclusion of the prose Lancelot, which was
expressly composed to effect the transition to the Queste del Saint
Graal, yet contradicts the latter in some serious points.

Wechesler, p. 148 (following in part Heinzel, p. 121), has
discerned a contradiction within the Didot-Perceval itself, in the
following circumstances: Perceval (p. 14) sets forth on his ad-
ventures, being enjoined thereto by his dying father, but no men-
tion is made of his mother; yet (pp. 38ff.) he returns to his
home and learns from his sister that his mother has died from
grief on account of his departure, likewise “‘der Vater und sechs
iltere Sdhne aus derselben Ursache.”’ But the statement which
I have quoted in the original German here is an error of Wechss-

tell of Arthur and speaks also of Alein’s death. Cp. Heinzel, p. 118.
As Heinzel remarks, pp. 118f., also, the Didot-Perceval does not
fulfill Robert's promise to tell of Moyses and Petrus — still further,
the appearance of the Grail is munch more pretentious in this romance
than in Robert's.

° W. W. Newell, Journal of American Folklore, X, 309 (1897),
has properly characterized the difference in these terms.

Google

108 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

ler’s own — there is nothing to support it in the texts. For the
rest, the implication that Perceval was one of six brothers is due
to a scribal blunder in the Didot MS. (Hucher, I, 446), which
has “vii” for ‘“‘un” (Modena MS., Miss Weston, p. 38) — an
error, I may remark, that is repeated later in the same MS. in
another connection (Hucher, I, 459). The supposed contradiction
thus reduces itself to this: Perceval’s mother is not mentioned when
he goes forth on the Grail quest; she is mentioned in the episode
of his return to his home. But in a condensed narrative like
that of the Didot-Perceval there is nothing surprising, much less
contradictory, about this. As a matter of fact, the difference is
due to the circumstance that in the first passage, where the Grail -
quest was the main thing, the author is adapting his work to
Robert’s Joseph, in which neither the mother nor the sister of
the prospective Grail-keeper were named, whereas in the latter
he was following Wauchier (ll. 25880ff.), where the sister tells
Perceval of her mother’s death, just as here.®

From the start it was really impossible to maintain that the
Didot-Perceval in the form in which we have it was a prose-
rendering of Robert’s hypothetical poem; for its dependence on
Chrétien’s Perceval and Wauchier’s continuation to that poem is
manifest. Nutt, Studies on the Holy Grail, p. 94, had an inkling
of this, but in the end (pp. 127ff.) resorts, as usual, to an (ima-
ginary ) lost saga source.’ Heinzel, whose whole discussion of the
Didot-Perceval is most valuable, came nearer (pp. 119f.) to the
expression of the full truth, when he rejected Birch-Hirschfeld’s
theory (pp. 182ff.) of later interpolation in the case of a matter —
where the Didot-Perceval agrees with Chrétien and Wauchier as

* By a blunder the scribe of the Didot MS. (Hucher, I, 426)
calls “Moys” the man who perished when he tried to take his seat at
the Round Table (Sommer, II, 57). It was the vacant seat at. the
Grail table (prose Joseph, p. 118) which Moys tried to occupy. Cp.,
also, Didot-Perceval, p. 12.

7 Some years later, Legends of the Holy Grail p. 34. (London,
1902), he comes nearer to the truth in describing the Didot- Perceval
as an “incongruous jumble of hints from de Borron’s work and a con-
fused version of the Conte del Graal’.

Google

The Didot-Perceval 109

against Robert, viz. in making the lance appear in the Grail pro-
cession, as it does not in Robert — and suggesting direct depen-
dence of that romance, even in its earliest form, on these writers
as sources. It was left, however, to W. Hoffmann, Quellen des
Didot-Perceval (Halle diss. 1905) to furnish the detailed proof
of this dependence: e. g. with reference to Chrétien, p. 18 (Great
Fool motif, Didot-Perceval, p. 15 of Miss Weston’s edition), pp.
58ff. (Perceval’s wanderings and second visit to the hermit, ¢bid.,
pp. 67ff.), 62ff. (the three days tournament, ibid., pp. 7Off.),
68ff. (lance in the Grail procession, Fisher-King’s father, form
of the Grail question, sbid., pp. 81ff.), besides pp. 12, 16, 20, etc.;
with reference to Wauchier, pp. 26ff. (Orgoilleus de la Lande
episode, sbid., pp. 23ff.), 29ff. (Perceval’s return to his home
and episodes involving his sister, ibid., pp. 37ff.), p. 36 (episode
of Li Biaus Mauvais and Rosete, ibid., pp. 44ff.), pp. 52ff. (the
series of episodes combining magical chessboard, stag-hunt and
tomb-knight adventures, which make up a considerable part of
the whole Didot-Perceval, ibid., pp. 31ff., 62ff.), 58ff£. (Perce-
_ val’s wanderings and second visit to the hermit, ibid., pp. 67ff.).
In the case of Wauchier, particularly, there is no possibility of
the incidents having passed from his work to the Didot-Perceval
through an intermediary poem of Robert’s, for the close verbal
correspondences noted by W. Hoffmann (pp. 28, 36, 52) between
Wauchier and the Didot-Perceval demonstrate the immediate depen-
dence of the latter upon the former beyond the shadow of a doubt.
These correspondences really render superfluous the further proof
which he furnishes (pp. 57f.) of the falsity of Wechssler’s theory
(Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIII, 161ff.), that Wauchier, the Didot-
Perceval, and Gerbert drew independently from a lost romance
concerning Perceval’s Grail-quest and stag-hunt.

Hoffmann’s demonstration of the dependence of the Didot-
Perceval on Wauchier relegates to the limbo of oblivion Birch-
Hirschfeld’s theory, pp. 194ff., that the former romance was the
source of both Chrétien and Wauchier. That theory, to be sure,
I believe, had never found an echo in Arthurian discussions.

W. Hoffmann’s excellent dissertation put into clear, accurate,

Google

110 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

and compact form convincing proof that the Didot-Perceval does
not represent a lost poem of Robert de Boron’s. Miss Weston,
however, owing to her invincible prejudice against acknowledging
that any extant work could be used by the author of any other
extant work, speaks (Legend of Sir Perceval, II, 185, note 3, and
190, note) with the greatest contempt of his investigations and
tries to rehabilitate this discredited thesis by new arguments of
two different kinds: In the first place she tries to explain (ibid.,
pp. 333ff.) the complete change of plan and tone between the
Didot-Perceval and Robert’s authentic works on the gratuitous
hypothesis that, before beginning the Didot-Perceval, the poet had
changed his patron and was adapting himself to a new lord. We
know, of course, virtually nothing of Robert’s life and nothing
whatever of this second hypothetical patron — little enough, in-
deed, of the first — and it is therefore, impossible to take serious-
ly so unfounded a suggestion. In the second place, Miss Weston
has endeavored to prove that the Didot-Perceval is based on a poem
of Robert’s by actually reconstructing, out of the extant prose,
specimens of the original lost metrical romance which she assumes.
But she has convinced nobody, and Brugger, especially, by his
searching criticism® of her reconstructions from various points of
view, Zs. f. fre. Spr. u. Litt., XXXVI*, 32ff. (in his review of
the Second Volume of her Legend of Sir Perceval), has demolished
them once for all. He rightly sums up Miss Weston’s whole effort
in this direction as a ‘“‘miissige Spielerei’’ (p. 41). The same
judgment, of course, would apply to any reconstruction of ‘“‘traces
of verse’’ which Sommer may have imagined that he detected in
the Modena MS. Cp. his Vulgate Verston of the Arthurian Ro-
mances, Vol. I, p. xi. And so whatever argument for a metrical
original for the Didot-Perceval that scholar may have based on
these imaginary ‘‘traces of verse’’ — and he has not even sug-
gested any other argument — is valueless. It is true that, unlike
Miss Weston, Sommer does not identify this metrical original with
any supposed work of Robert de Boron’s, but with an hypotheti-

* Cp. also W. Foerster's Chrétien Worterbuch, p. 236*.

Google

The Didot-Perceval 111

cal lost poem of about the year 1200, which had among its sources
Chrétien and Wauchier. See his Messtre Robert de Borron und
der Verfasser des Didot-Perceval, p. 39 (Halle, 1908) — also, sbid.,
note 3, the obscure hint which appears to refer to the “traces of
verse” more definitely spoken of in the passage which I have
just cited. Sommer, as I have intimated, has not even attempted
to bring forward any evidence as to the existence of this hypo-
thetical poem, unless we are to take this hint as such, and he
' has gained no adherents to his theory, so. that we may dismiss
it from our discussions.

Brugger acknowledges (Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXX, 69 ff.,
XXXVI?, 58 ff.) that Chrétien and Wauchier are sources of the
Didot-Perceval in the only form in which we have it — for in-
stance, for the long complex of episodes that relate to the magical
chessboard, the search for the hound, the stag-hunt and the tomb-
knight, taken from Wauchier, ll. 22393ff., but still contends that
the work is a prose rendering of a lost Perceval by Robert de Boron
and that passages based on these writers were interpolated — most
probably by a redactor of the original prose rendering. But Hoff-
mann has shown in a perfectly objective manner that the borro-
wings from Chrétien and Wauchier (very frequently from the
former, though in larger measure from the latter) are observable
virtually in every part of the Dsdot-Perceval, from beginning to
end, and where the author is not drawing upon the two poets, as,
for example, in the episode of Perceval’s taking his seat at the
Round Table, near the beginning of the romance, he still stands
(as we have seen) in flagrant contradiction with the conceptions
of Robert. In view of these conditions, Brugger’s modification
of the theory that the Didot-Perceval is a lost poem of Robert’s
turned into prose® is as untenable as Miss Weston’s unqualified

* Brugger shows a weakening, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXVI",
55, in regard to this theory, when he says: “Robert's Autorschaft
scheint mir auch fiir den urspriinglichen Didot-Perceval nicht absolut
erwiesen.. He hastens, however, to reaffirm his faith in it.

Contrary to his former opinion, F. Lot, in his Etude sur le
Lancelot en prose, pp. 133f. (including notes), et passim, accepts the

Google

112 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

hypothesis. Furthermore, in view of these same conditions, it is
in the highest degree improbable that the invective against Chrétien
and “li autre troveor qui en ont trove por faire lor rimes plai-
sanz” (p. 68) did not belong to the romance in its original form.
If the Didot-Perceval is not by Robert, then, there is no
reason to attribute to him the insignificant Mort Arthur which
is attached to that romance in both of our MSS. These MSS. do
not ascribe it to him and in his Joseph and Merlin he gives no
indication that he intended to write a Mort Arthur. The fact
that the author of the actual Mort Arthur of the Didot-Perceval
MS. follows closely a bald verse-chronicle account of that di-
vision of Arthurian story, which he found in Wace’s Brut or in
some slightly modified version thereof, is additional proof that
it is not by Robert, for in neither of this writer’s authentic works
do we observe this slavish adherence to sources. (Cp. on the sources
of the Didot-Perceval Mort Arthur, F. Lot, Bibliothéque de 0 Ecole
des Chartes, LXX, 567f. and J. D. Bruce, RR., IV, 448ff.) °°
In the Didot MS. the Joseph begins (Hucher I, 277) with
“Ci comence le romanz des prophecies Merlin,” and the Mort
Arthur ends (Hucher I 505): ‘Ci finist le romanz des prophecies
Merlin” (in the Modena MS. Miss Weston, II, 112: ‘“‘Ici fine
li romans de Merlin et del Graal’’). But this designation is un-
questionably due to the error of a scribe, who probably took it
(ep. Sommer’s Messtre Robert de Borron, etc., p. 16) from a French
translation of Geoffrey’s Prophecies of Merlin, which in this MS.
ig inserted into the prose Merlin. Sommer, sbid., p. 39, has ex-
pressed the opinion that the small cycle (or trilogy, as he regards
it) contained in the Didot and Modena MSS. was formed about

Didot-Perceval as relatively early and as a prose rendering of Robert's
(hypothetical) lost Perceval.

° Bragger and Miss Weston, who believe that the Perceval
section of the Didot-Perceval is based on Robert’s verse, believe the
same thing of the Mort Arthur section. For the former, cp. Zs.
f. fra. Spr. u. Litt, XXIX', 601. 71, XXX*, 182i, XXXVI", 554;
for the latter, cp. Legend of Sir Perceval, II, 326. If the source of
the Mort Arthur section was indeed Martin of Rochester's chronicle,
this chronicle must have differed very slightly from Wace.

Google

The Didot-Perceval 113

1230 on the model of the larger cycle (which in the MSS. is
faleely ascribed to Robert de Boron) as a protest against the sub-
stitution of Galahad for Perceval as the Grail hero. The “‘protest”’
would be coming pretty late — for Galahad by that date must have
been holding the field for something like two decades — and the
theory also involves the common assumption, which I believe to
be unwarranted, that the authors of the Arthurian romances took
these creations of their contemporaries more seriously than has
been true under similar circumstances with the fiction-writers of
other periods, but otherwise the suggestion possesses a certain plau-
sibility, and has, in my judgment, the great merit of recognizing
that because Galahad through the Vulgate cycle had become the
popular Grail Winner, there was no reason why a writer seeking
novelty in his own fashion should not revive Perceval in that
function. Nevertheless, I believe, for my own part, that this
smaller cycle may have been modelled directly after the Vulgate
(instead of the Pseudo-Robert) cycle with the Lencelot left out.
A writer may have very well thought that by the side of that
huge cycle there would be among the aristocratic patrons of the
time a public for a Grail cycle of moderate dimensions. With
the prose versions of Robert’s Joseph and Merlin already at hand,
such a cycle was, of course, easy to compose, and the temptation
to try one’s hand at such a work was accordingly all the stronger.'!

* For important additional evidence that tells against the theory
of Robert’s authorship of the Didot-Perceval (in its hypothetical verse-
form), see next discussion.

Refperia, Exgdnyungsreihe : 9. 8

Google

Chapter X.

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem
and its Relation to the Didot=Perceval.

In the references to Robert de Boron (Borron), he is always
called messire (mesire, misstre), so he was a knight, not an ec-
clesiastic. For his origin and the date of his poem, cp. especially,
A Birch-Hirschfeld, pp. 238ff. (1877), G. Paris, Huth-Merlin,
vol. I, pp. viiiff. (1886), R. Heinzel, pp. 113ff. (1892), H
Suchier, Ps. f. rom. Ph., XVI, 269 ff. (1892) (i. e, his review
of Heinzel’s Grail treatise), and W. Foerster, Chrétien Worter-
buch, 167*ff. (1914) — also, I, 220ff., above.

Francisque Michel in his edifion of the Tristan poems (Lon-
don and Paris, 1835—1839), vol. I, p. III, brought to light a
Robert de Burun from an Essex document of the twelfth cen-
tury, and H. L. D. Ward communicated to Suchier, loc. cit., p. 274,
information concerning still another, who, with his wife and son
granted eighty acres in Cockenhatch, Hertfordshire, to a monastery
of 8. Salvius or S. Winwaloeus of Mosteriol (Picardy), now Mon-
treuil-sur-Mer. Robert, abbot of the monastery from 1177 to 12038
“presently transferred” the grant to the chapel of S. Winwaleus
in Saffron Walden, Essex. In the Geschichte der franzdsischen
Literatur, p. 187 (second edition, Leipzig, 1913), written by
himself and Birch-Hirechfeld, Suchier is inclined to identify this
second Robert de Burun with the poet. In the above-cited ar-
ticle in the Zs. f. rom. Ph. he had already argued from the lan-
guage that the poet was an Anglo-Norman. But the more detailed
examinations of the linguistic evidence in M. Ziegler’s dissertation,
Uber Sprache und Alter des von Robert de Boron Verfassten Roman
du Saint Graal, p. 92 (Leipzig, 1895) and in Foerster’s Wérter-
buch, pp. 168*f. (including note) point to the conclusion that Ro-
bert belonged, at least, originally, to Picardy — the rhyme e: te

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 115

constituting the only distinctively Anglo-Norman feature of his
language.! To be sure, Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt. XXXVI,
33 (review section, 1910) denies that the e: te rhyme in Robert
is really Anglo-Norman. The e, he says, merely rhymes with the
second element in the rising diphthong, ie. Before accepting this
view, however, I would await confirmation from authorities on
Old French metre and dialects. In any event, Brugger’s expla-
nation evidently did not occur to Foerster, for he offers the follow-
ing alternative hypotheses to account for the somewhat conflicting
phenomena: 1. That the second redaction of Robert's poem was
by a person whose dialect was different from Robert’s own. 2. That
Robert’s language, though originally Picard, may have been af-
fected by a long stay in England. The second of these suppo-
sitions, which, per se, with regard to the conditions of the time,
is a very likely one, seems to me preferable. The evidence which
G. Paris, loc. cit., has adduced to prove that the poet, personally,
was ignorant of Great Britain and drew on a defective memory
of Wace for all that he says about it is, I believe, reconcilable with
this assumption. For Paris points out only one positive geographi-
cal blunder in Robert’s work, viz: that of making Winchester
- a port. But one can easily conceive of a foreigner, who, in the
twelfth or thirteenth century, if not in the twentieth, should con-
tinue under this erroneous impression, even after he had resided
in Great Britain for several years, if his residence were in some
other part of the island. It is not necessary to ascribe the crror
to the author of the prose version, as Foerster, Wérterbuch, p.
171*, is inclined to do. The other matters which Paris, pp. XIf.
(including notes) calls attention to as showing ignorance of Great
Britain on the part of the author are, in my opinion, compatible
with this theory of Robert’s life, for none of them would be strange
in an Arthurian romance by a native of Picardy, even if he had
sojourned for some time in England.

* In his review of Birch-Hirschfeld’s Sage vom Gral, Zs. f.
rom. Ph., Il, 617#f. (1878), E. Koschwitz, on the basis of the rhymes,
had already decided that Robert did not write in Anglo-Norman, but
Ziegler and Foerster present fuller evidence.

ge

Google

116 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

The shghtly conflicting evidence as to the date of Robert's
language, noted by Foerster, may be explained by a taste for
archaic forms on the part of the author.

P. Paris’s attempt (Romania I, 477) to connect Robert with
Belfort and E. Hucher’s (Le Saint Graal, I, 41ff.) to connect him
with a commune, now called “Bouron’”’, on the southern edge of
the forest of Fontainebleau, are both rendered nugatory (despite
Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 240) by the evidence of the language. On
the other hand, the passage in the prose Tristan (E. Liéseth, Le
roman en prose de Tristan, p. 216) which speaks of Robert’s having
seen at Oxford a silver image, made at King Arthur’s command,
of a certain hideous damsel in that romance is, on the face of it,
like other citations of the same writer in this work, certainly
a mere invention. Cp. Foerster, Wérterbuch, p. 169*, on the
subject.

The much-debated lines at the end of Robert’s Joseph, on
which the dating of the poem depends, are so important that it
is desirable to reprint them here (from F. Michel’s Le roman du
Sait Graal, 145ff., Bordeaux, 1841) in their entirety.

Ainsi Joseph se demoura. 3455
Li boens Pescherres s'en ala

(Dont furent puis meintes paroles

Contees, ki ne sunt pas foles)

En la terre lau il fu nez,

Et Joseph si est demourez. 3460
Messires Roberz de Beron

Dist, se ce ci savoir voulun,

Sanz doute savoir couvenra

Conter la ou Aleins ala,

Li fiuz Hebron, et qu'il devint,

En queu terre aler le couvint,

Et ques oirs de li peut issir,

Et queu femme le peut nourrir,

Et queu vie Petrus mena,

Qu'il devint n’en quel liu ala, 3470
En quel liu sera recouvrez;

A peinnes sera retrouvez;

Que Moyses est devenuz,

Que fu si longuement perduz:

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 117

Trouver le couvient par reison

(De parole ainsi le dist-on)

Lau li riches Peschierres va;

E a quel liu il s’arrestera,

Et celui sache ramener,

Qui orendroit s’en doit aler. 3480
Ces quatre choses rassembler

Couvient chaucune, et ratourner

Chascune partie par soi

Si comme ele est; meis je bien croi

Que nus hons ne’s puet rassembler

Sil n’a avant oi conter

Dou Graal la plus grant estoire,

Sanz doute, ki est toute voire.

A ce tens que je la retreis

O mon seigneur Gautier en peis, 3490

Que de Mont-Belyal estoit,

Unques retreite este n’avoit

La grant estoire dou Graal

Par nul homme qui fust mortal;

Meis je fais bien a touz savoir

Qui cest livre vourrunt avoir,

Que, se Diex me donne sante

Et vie, bien ei volenté

De ces parties assembler,

Se en livre les puis trouver. 3500

Ausi cumme d’une partie

Leisse, que je me retrei mie,

Ausi couvenra il conter

La quinte, et les quatre* oublier,

Tant que je puisse revenir

Au retreire plus par loisir

Et a ceste uuevre tout par moi,

Et chascune m’estulet] par soi;

Meis se je or les leisse a tant,

Je ne sai homme si sachant 3510

Qui ne quit que soient perdues

Ne qu’eles serunt devenues,

Ne en quele senefiance

J’en aroie feit dessevrance.

* In Bausteine zur romanischen Philologie: Festgabe fir
Adolfo Mussafia zum 15. Februar 1905, p. 617 (Halle, 1905),

Google

118 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

P. Paris, RTR., I, 152, note, proposes rightly, I believe,
that ll. 3459 and 3460 should exchange places. Suchier’s con-
jectural restoration (p. 271) in 1. 3508, mestrai, is preferable to
Michel’s m’estuet, and I accept also his emendation of ierent (fu-
ture) for furent in L. 3457, a scribe having probably mistaken
terent, the future, for the imperfect of the same form. Moreover,
Suchier is certainly right (sbid.) as against Heinzel, p. 117, in
interpreting ll. 3479ff. as applying to the Rich Fisher and not
to Gautier de Montbelyal, and the Grail history of lL 3487, 3493
as meaning Robert’s own Joseph (or rather, as I should, myself,
say, bis Joseph plus his proposed continuations of the story of
the Grail), instead of some other book — for example, the Hstotre
del Saint Graal as P. Paris, Romania, I, 481 (including note 1)
and Romans de la Table Ronde, V, 356, conjectured. See, too,
Heinzel, p. 112. It is merely a characteristic awkwardness of
expression that makes the poet, 1. 3486, put himself for the moment
at the point of view of the reader.

P. Paris, Romans de la Table Ronde, I, 109, Romania, I,
481, and G. Paris, Huth-Merlin, I, p. LX, note 1, have expressed
the view that the sole text of Robert’s poem that we possess is
that of a second redaction, differing, as their words would imply,
from the first;* but their statements are merely of a general nature.

KE. Freymond defends trot, the reading here of MS. Riccardiana 2759
(the MS. which he is describing). That MS. (of the prose Joseph),
however, has no value (cp. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XX1X*,
33ff.) and there is no reason for rejecting the usual reading. Frey-
mond (so, too, P. Paris and Gréber) thinks (1bid., pp. 619f.) that
Alain, his son, and Bron were to be the heroes of the postponed three
branches. He regards Moyses and Petrus as merely episodenhaft and
remarks that the figure, three (the number of the Christian Trinity),
runs all through Robert's poem. Robert's words here, however, are -
too plain to be argued away.

* So, too, E. Freymond, op. cit. p. 617, especially with reference
to ll. 3481 to the end of the poem. He expresses uncertainty as to
whether these lines represent the working over (by Robert or another)
of an older passage, or whether they constitute an addition to the first
redaction. So too, with ll. 3455f. He suggests that a copyist substituted
L 3460 for a lost line, reading probably “Et Joseph est mort et finez’’.

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 119

The puzzling lines, 3489ff., one may accept with practical cer-
tainty as a later addition. They furnish no ground for the belief,
however, that the poem, as a whole, was recast, or “abridged and
arranged,” as Nutt, p. 95, puts it. Heinzel, who adopts the opinion
of P. and G. Paris, gives it a somewhat more definite form, inas-
much as he cites (p. 88) as an addition of fhe second redaction,
ll. 881—938, besides 3481—3514 (last paragraph of the poem).
In these lines, 881ff., Christ, speaking to Joseph in the prison,
promises that those that believe in him shall be saved and that
Joseph’s memory will always be connected with the sacrament —
then recounts briefly the Last Supper, and interprets his own en-
tombment in terms of the eucharist. At the end, the poet says,
ll. 929 ff. :

Je nose conter ne retreire,

Ne je ne le pouwroie feire,

Neis, se je feire le voloie,

Se je le grant livre n'avoie

Ou les estoires sunt escrites,

Par les granz clers feites et dites:

La sunt li grant secre escrit

Qu’en numme le graal et dit.

The three points which Heinzel makes, in arguing that, ll.
881—938, did not belong to the original redaction, are, 1. that =
before this passage we have, ll. 879f.:

“Joseph, qui a genouz estoit,
Prist le veissel [i. e. Grail] que Diex tenoit”,
and immediately after it we have the same thing virtually repe-
ated, ll. 937f.:
‘‘Adonce le veissel li bailla,
Et Joseph volentiers pris !’a.’’

But there is no reason per se why the intervening lines should
not have stood in the first redaction, and, if that is true, even
a poet who was not afflicted with Robert’s proverbial clumsiness
might have found it advisable, after so long a digression, in re-
suming his narrative, to repeat the last incident which he had
given in that narrative. 2. Heinzel thinks that the words, |. 941,
ces trois vertuz, referring to the Trinity, could not have been sepa-

Google

120 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

rated so far in the original redaction from the last mention of the
Trinity, ll. 877f. But after Christ’s previous description of the
Trinity, ll. 873ff., as three persons in one, in whose name the
Grail-keepers will guard the vessel, there could be no misunder-
standing of his words, ll. 939ff.:
“Joseph, quant vouras
Et tu mestier en averas,
A ces trois vertuz garderas,
Q’une chose estre ainsi creiras.”
Joseph would have had a short memory, indeed, if he had for-
gotten these tremendous teachings in so brief an interval. 3. Hein-
gel sees a contradiction in regard to the Grail-story between 1. 934
(about the Grail book of les granz clers) and ll. 3489ff. (quoted
above), where Robert implies that he was the first to write about
the Grail. To begin with, it seems a very questionable exegesis
to try to hold down to strict accuracy an obscure, negligent writer
in a reference to a purely fictitious book (pace Wechssler, Zs. f,
rom. Ph., XXIII, 169). But, even waiving this objection, it is
surely more likely that the poet, writing or recasting the epilogue
to his poem some years after the poem itself was composed (as
the use of the preterite, retreis, compels us to assume) and on
the point of beginning the Merlin, should have forgotten his lines
about the Grail book of the great clerks, than that he should
have inserted these two more or less contradictory passages in his
new redaction — for, if Heinzel’s theory is true, this is what
must have happened.
If I have been successful in refuting the main points raised
by Heinzel, there is no need of considering his suggestion (p. 89)
as to the supposed modification of ll. 2448ff. in the extant version.
W. Foerster’s acceptance of a second redaction, Wérterbuch,
p. 161*, is connected with his theory that the first redaction an-
tedated Chrétien's Perceval; this theory, however, has found no
adherents.
In the Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIII, 170, note 2 (1899), E. Wechs-
sler has already, in general terms, rejected the theory of a second
redaction of Robert’s poem, and specifically, with reference to the

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of hts Poem etc. 121

passage which I have just been discussing, but the “verlorene
mystisch-symbolische Graallegende’’ which he assumes to have been
Robert’s source for this passage as for others in his poem is a pure
myth.

Brugger, Zs. f. fr. Spr. u. Latt., XXX, 64, note 13, has
also rejected the theory of a second redaction on more general
grounds than those which I have adopted in my argument above.
I agree with Brugger that en peis is put in merely for rhyme’s
sake, but the suggestion that retreis, the preterite which rhymes
with it, should have been substituted by Robert for retret, the
present (which would have expressed his real meaning), is in-
credible. — It would remove all difficulties, if we could assume
that the poet was here writing from the point of view of his reader,
as was the custom, for instance, in Roman letter-writing. In that
‘case the past tense would be appropriate. But as far as I know,
there are no parallels to this in medieval usage.

H. O. Sommer and F. Lot are to be added to the list of scho-
lars who have refused to accept the theory of two redactions for
Robert’s Joseph. For the former cp. Messtre Robert de Borron
und der Verfasser des Didot-Perceval, p. 13 (Halle, 1908), and
for the latter, Bibliothéque de Ecole des Chartes, LXX, 565,
note 4. As I have said already, however, Lot’s rejection of the
whole reference to Gautier de Montbéliard as a falsification seems
unjustified. Believing that Robert advanced this impudent claim
only after Gautier’s death, Lot puts the composition of the Joseph
after 1212. But this is virtually impossible, for the prose ro-
mance of the Vulgate cycle which has been commonly called the
Grand St. Graal is indisputably dependent on Robert’s Joseph and
yet, was certainly in existence by 1216, and, in all likelihood,
several years earlier. See my article in The Romanic Review,
III, 185ff. (1912). Wauchier de Denain, I may add, may have
written before Robert, as Lot appears to think, but Brugger has
shown conclusively, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt. XXXVI?, 45ff., that
there is no reason why we should limit his literary activity to
the thirteenth century.

Wechseler, Zs. f. rom. Phil., XXIII. 149ff., maintains that

Google

122 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Robert actually composed the branches on Alain, Petrus, Moises,
and Bron which he speaks of, 346ff., though they are no
longer extant, and that these branches came just after the
Merlsn. But no trace of any such branches, if they ever existed,
has reached us; for the incidents attached to the four characters
in the latter part of the Grand St. Graal (Estoire del Saint Graal),
I, 260ff. (Sommer’s edition), which Wechssler cites, cannot be
taken in this sense. He, himself, notes the want of correspondence
between the part of the Grand St. Graal in question and such in-
dications as we have of Robert’s intentions in his extant work,
and draws the familiar inference that the two are not directly
related, but go back to a common lost source. This is a very dis-
putable conclusion, but I will not argue the matter here, since,
in granting that this part of the Grand St. Graal is not dependent
on Robert, Wechssler yields the essential point. The part of his
argument which is based on supposed references to these branches
in the Didot-Perceval is only valid on the assumption that that
romance is really the prose rendering of a lost poem by Robert;
but this assumption is, in my judgment, erroneous, as the evi-
dence which I shall review in a moment appears to prove.

In two MSS. of the prose Merlin (747 of the Bibliothéque
Nationale and Add. 32625 of the British Museum) we have at
the end of that romance the following passage: ‘‘Et je, Robers de
Boron qui cest livre retrais .... ne doi plus parler d’Artus, tant
que j’aie parle d’Alain, le fils de Bron, et que j’aie devise par
raison, por quelles choses les poines de Bretaigne furent establies.
Et ensi com li livres le reconte, me convient a parler et retraire,
ques hom fu Alain, et quele vie il mena, et ques oirs issi de lui,
et quelle vie si oir menerent., Et quant tems sera et leus, et je
aurai de celui parle si reparlerai d’Artu et prendrai les paroles
de lui et de sa vie a s’election et a son sacre.”* ©

* I have given the text of MS. 747 (Bibl. Nat.), as it is reproduced
by P. Paris, I, 357. Nearly every one who has discussed the problems
of the Didot-Perceval has reprinted it. The text of Add. 32125
(B. M.), which is not quite so correct, can be best consulted in Sommer's

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 123

This passage has been accepted as genuine by P. Paris, I,
357, who first printed it (from MS. 747), by Birch-Hirschfeld,
pp. 179f., who points out its coincidences of phrasing with lines
in Robert’s poems, and by G. Paris, Huth-Merlin, I, pp. XXIf. —
also, by Wechssler, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIII, 138f., and Brugger,
Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XXIX', 67f., XXXVI?, 12f. On the
other hand, W. Hoffman, Quellen des Didot-Perceval (Halle, 1905),
pp. 12f., and Sommer, Messire Robert de Borron und der Ver-
fasser des Didot-Perceval, pp. 2f. (Halle, 1908), have objected
to its authenticity. The latter, especially, has argued the question
at some length. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Intt., XXXVI}, Off.,
has answered convincingly three of the four arguments which Som-
mer has advanced, but the second of these arguments, viz. that
the passage is a mere repetition, in condensed form, of the end of
the Joseph, still seems to me to possess weight. More decisive,
however, in favor of the position of Hoffmann and Sommer than
anything which they themselves urge are, I believe, the following
considerations: 1. the peculiar use in this passage of ‘‘poines’’, in
the phrase, “‘poines de Bretagne’’ -- “por quelles choses les poines
de Bretaigne furent establies.’’ Hoffmann’s interpretation of the
““poines de Bretaigne,’ as referring to the wars that are related
in the Merlen continuations (between Arthur and his barons, Ar-
thur and the Saxons, Arthur and the Romans), is hardly ad-
missible. The word “‘establir’” does not accord with this inter-
pretation. Men do not “‘establish’’ wars. “‘Poines’’ that are “‘es-
tablies’’ must mean ‘‘adventures’’ and the passage implies the es-
tablishment of adventures (or coutumes, which are to be overcome
by adventures) such as we meet with at every turn in the Chrétien
tradition. The connotation of the word here is identical with that
of “poine” in the Didot-Perceval (Hucher, I, 448),5 where Perce-
val tells his sister that he would stay, ‘“‘se je avoi acomplie la
poine ou je sui entre,’ and it is similar to that of the “‘enchante-

Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, LI, 86, note 1. It is
there given with its context.

* The Modena MS. has here “queste’. Cp. Miss Weston’s
text, II, 39.

Google

124 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

ments’’ of the same romance, Hucher, I, 419, 428, 467, 484f.6 —
which end (pp. 484f.), after Perceval has achieved the Grail ad-
venture — although not quite identical, I believe, as Wechssler and
Brugger assume. Now in Robert’s verse, as far as it has been
preserved, the word potne (petme and other variants) occurs only
four times, viz., Joseph, ll. 180, 214, 3472, and Merlen, 1. 3619.
The first two times it is in the singular, the last time in the plural.
In the third case it means “difficulty” (a peinnes), in the rest,
“suffering” (twice with reference to Christ). In the portion of
Robert's work which is preserved to us only in the form of a prose
rendering — that is to say, in the remainder and greater part of
the Merlin — it occurs only once, viz. Sommer’s Vulgate Version
of the Arthurian Romances, II, 54, in the plural (painnes), and
here again it means ‘sufferings’, being used this time of the
sufferings of Christ’s apostles. It is found, also, in the singular
(patne) six times in the prose-rendering of Robert’s Merlin, viz.
Sommer, II, 19 (twice), 20 (twice), 24, 54, and always with the
meaning of “labor expended in achieving a task.’’? Thus it will
be seen that Robert’s undisputed works, as far as the extant MS.
tradition permits us to judge, contain no instance of poines in the
peculiar use of the passage under discussion. 2. Furthermore, the
conception of romantic adventure implied in the phrase “por
quelles choses les poines de Bretaigne furent establies,’’ — fairy-
tale tasks to be achieved by the hero — which came to the Ar-
thurian romancers from folk-tales, is entirely foreign to Robert,
whose mind moves altogether in the realm of legend (whether
Christian or oriental) and chronicle. 3. There are indications that
the passage is a mere imitation of the epilogue to the Joseph and
was inserted by a scribe who wished to indicate at this point what

* The corresponding passages in the Modena MS. will be found
in Miss Weston’s text, II, 13, 22, 62, 84. The word, “encantement”,
is found here, too, in all but the first passage.

” In his Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, I, p. XXU,
Sommer seems to regard Merlin’s address to Blaise, II, 19f., in which
the first four instances of pane in the singular occur, as a scribal

interpolation. But its very clumsiness and obscurity, which recall so
strongly the Joseph epilogue, testify to its genuineness.

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 125

he knew from that epilogue .to have been Robert's original inten-
tion. As bearing on this point, I would call attention to the fact
that in exactly the same MSS. (747, B. N. and Add. 32125 B. M.)
that preserve this passage we have in the body of the Merlin, |
Sommer, II, 20, note 1, another (brief) insertion which, likewise,
harks back to this epilogue and which is plainly unauthorized,
It is, of course, derived by the two MSS. from a common ancestor
in the MS. tradition. The situation is this: Blaise has taken down
from Merlin’s dictation the narrative of the events which have been
related up to that point in Robert’s Merlin, and Merlin then tells
him that his (Blaise’s) book, which is, of course, really Robert’s
‘Merlin, is going to be joined to the Joseph. He continues: ‘Et
quant li doi liure seront ensamble, si i aura .j. biau liure, & li
doi seront .j. misme chose, fors tant que ne puis pas dire ne re-
traire les priuees paroles de ihesu crist & de ioseph [1. e. as is done
in Robert’s Joseph ]* ne en engleterre nauoit onques este rois cres-
tiene [i. e. at the time of the events related in the Joseph]. Et
des rois qui i aucient este deuant ne me chaut de retraire fors tant
comme a cest conte amonte.”’

Now after the word “‘ioseph”’ in this passage, MS. Add.32125
(B. M.), fol. 2144, intercalates, “Elsi [for etsi=ensi] dit mi sire
Robert de Borron qui cest conte retrait [o] mi sire Gauter de
Montbeliart qi cist conte se redoble [i. e. the Merlin is added to the
Joseph] et ensi le dita merlin qil ne pot sauer le conte du graal.”’
MS. 747 (B. N.), fol. 82b, as Sommer tells us, has “a similar
passage but ‘mi sire Gauter de Montbeliart’ is not mentioned.”’
The variant from MS. Add. 32125, fol. 213d, which Sommer
gives, II, 19, note 2, in its allusion to Bron (Alain’s father) which
is not found in the other Merlin MSS., shows the same harking
back to the epilogue of the Joseph.® It is obvious from these pas-

* My interpretation differs slightly from that which Brugger has
given of this passage, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXIX", 82, note 34.
Moreover, when he says there that Robert may have meant to include
a Perceval in the Merlin which is here indicated, this is obviously
unjustified. |

° I have tried to prove that the passage (in the two MSS.) which

Google

126 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

sages that the scribe (or redactor) of the archetype of these MSS.
drew from the Joseph epilogue on his own account, and, no doubt,
he was doing the same thing when he inserted the passage under
discussion at the end of the Merlin.

The question has been asked: Why did Robert postpone com-
pleting the story of the four characters, Alain, Petrus, Moyses
and Bron, whom he had introduced in the Joseph, and take up the
Merlin, instead? Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., X XIX}, 64,
thinks that he wanted to wait in order to learn what impression
his innovation — the introduction of Christian legend into the
Arthurian romances ‘‘on a large scale’’ — would produce. To
me the most plausible explanation is that he was drawn away
from his immediate theme by the story of Merlin, partly on ac-

1 have been discussing is spurious. But even if we accepted it as
genuine, it would not justify the inferences which have been drawn
from it. In that event, it would merely show that Robert now in
tended to compose an Alai, as a separate branch, in conformity with
his statement as to the omitted branches in the Joseph, 1. 3483
(chascune partie par soi). In the face of the author's own express
declaration of his intentions, Brugger’s argument, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u.
Litt., XXIX', 67, that what the above-quoted passage announces about
Alain was to constitute a part of the Perceval branch is of no avail,
for the poet puts Alain first and not his heir. Similarly, the theory
which the same scholar adopts (pp. 59f.) that Robert planned his work
as a trilogy is contradicted by Robert’s own words, who, himself,
speaks (1. 3504) of the Merlin as the fifth branch. Later in the same
journal, XXXVI*, 8, 55, Brugger changes “trilogy” to “tetralogy”,
bat that is open to the same objection.

The idea that Robert cast his work in the form of a trilogy,
which has been adopted by Birch-Hirschfeld, I, 181, Miss Weston,
Legend of Sir Lancelot, I, 126, and others, is entirely natural for
anyone who regards the Didot-Perceval (including its insignificant
Mort Arthur section) as a prose rendering of Robert's verse. But the
maintenance of this idea depends wholly on one’s ability to establish
the thesis just mentioned. It derives no support from Robert's own
declaration on the subject. It would seem from Sommer, II, 19f., as
if Robert, when he wrote this passage, had already decided to content
himself with the Joseph and the Merlin, and had renounced his ori-
ginal ambitious plan.

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 127

count of the intrinsic interest of the latter (to which something
may have attracted his attention, whilst he was composing the
Joseph) and partly because a work on the great magician, as he
may have come to feel, was sure to gain him a wider hearing than
the adventures of the four shadowy characters named above. He
might well shrink from pursuing the latter further in their wan-
derings and have taken a short cut to what from the beginning had
been his ultimate goal — namely, Britain, as the stage of the
actions of King Arthur and the celebrated characters who sur-
rounded him. I have no doubt, too, that the poet was deterred
from following out the careers of Alain, Petrus, Moyses and Bron
by the effort which the invention of adventures for these charac-
ters would have entailed, whereas the remarkable story of Merlin’s
conception (probably an adaptation of a rabbinical tale) and other
similar stories, together with the metrical chronicles — especially,
Wace’s Roman de Brut, or, it may be, the lost expansion of the
same — furnished him with ample materiale for a romance con-
cerning Merlin.

It has, of course, been assumed quite commonly that the story
of Alain and the rest in Robert's Joseph is derived from hypo-
thetical lost sources. In the Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIII, 161ff. Wechs-
sler, for example, has conjured up a number of such imaginary
sources — “Percevals Gralsuche und Hirschjagd,” ‘‘Pseudo-bla-
sius,” “Die Graallegende von Joseph und semem Geschlecht,” “Die
mystisch-symbolische Graallegende,” ‘Die Legende vom Graal als
der Abendmahlechissel.’’ But this is all purely subjective. The
critic has simply analyzed the various elements in Robert’s poem
and assigned to each an imaginary writing as a source. He has
produced no evidence, beyond these subjective impressions, to prove
that any such sources ever existed.

So, too, when Brugger, loc. cit., p. 67, note 15, interprets ls
livres, in the passage (at the end of the prose Merlén in the two
MSS. named) which I have quoted above, as referring to Robert's
source, there is no cogency in his interpretation, since it is a com-
monplace for the writers of Arthurian romance — indeed, a sort
of formula — to appeal to ié livres, li contes, li escris, as authorities

Google

128 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

for what are really their own inventions. In his continuation to
Chrétien’s Perceval, Gerbert (Potvin, VI, 193), in the same manner,
plainly speaks of his own work, as if he were speaking of its source:
“Si com Gerberts le nous tesmoigne
En son conte que il en fist!”

I wish to devote a few pages to this question of Robert’s source,
which though, in my judgment, satisfactorily answered, in the
main, by Birch-Hirschfeld, still requires some elucidation, as re-
gards the last division of the Joseph.’

The Vindscta Salvatoris and Gesta Pilaté, as the German scho-
lar, just named, has shown, are the sources of the first part of
Robert’s poem. I believe that we can fix with equal certainty
the sources of the latter part — the part (Il. 2307ff.) in which
Bron, Alain etc. appear. To be sure, as Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 224,
has remarked, the story here moves very slowly and consists of a
few simple incidents, without the complications of the earlier narra-
tive. Religious instruction, which is imparted especially in dia-
logues between Joseph and the Holy Spirit, takes, as he says, the
place of action, in a large measure. The action here is more
meagre, no doubt, for the reason that the source of this part was
poorer in incident. Now, as regards the identity of this source,
Birch-Hirschfeld, loc. ctt., has observed that the incidents of this
last part of the Joseph “sind im ganzen nur biblischen Vorgingen
nachgebildet.” More specifically, Heinzel has noted (pp. 99, 102f.)
that the wanderings of the Children of Israel in the Wilderness
formed the model for the similar journey of Joseph and his com-
panions in Robert’s poem. He has, besides (pp. 102f.) pointed
out the many reeemblances between the Ark of the Covenant in
the Old Testament narrative and the Grail in the Joseph. All

*° P. Paris in his article, “Le Saint Graal”, Romania, I, 457tt.,
observed the dependence of the Early History cf the Grail in the ro-
mances on the Vindicta Salvatoris and Gesta Pilati, but he made
the mistake of dating the Estoire del Saint Graal (Grand St. Graal)
as earlier than Robert's Joseph, and hence regards the author of that
work as the first of our romance-writers to use these materials. But

Birch-Hirschfeld, pp. 162ff., proved that the Estotre is dependent on
Robert's poem.

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 129

of this is so obvious that the author of the Estotre del Saint Graal
(Grand St. Graal), I, 20, whose work is, of course, based on Ro-
bert’s, really, makes Joseph (following God’s command) put the
Grail in an ark. Even Heinzel, however, I believe, has not dis-
cerned the true significance of Robert’s poem in its relation to the
Old Testament narrative. In order to establish what that signi-
ficance is, let us consider the following circumstances:

| The conclusion of Robert’s Joseph indicates clearly enough
that he, like all other writers of Arthurian romance, connected
the Grail with Britain, and that, in the event of his carrying out
the programme which he outlines, Il. 3461ff., he intended to trans-
port it and its keepers thither, as his imitator, the author of the
Estotre del Saint Graal, I, 211ff., actually does. If this is so,
it seems strange that he should not have done this immediately
after Joseph, liberated and in full possession of the Grail, had
been avenged on the Jews. Instead, he sends Joseph and his
companions off to journey, like the Israelites, ‘‘in distant lands,’’
L 23863. Britain was surely distant enough and the test of the
powers of the Grail could have been made there as well as any-
where else. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, he was influenc-
ed in the course which he has adopted by the motives of religious
symbolism which we find governing him everywhere in his poem
(cp. particularly, ll. 803ff.). His interest in the Grail was pri-
marily religious, and he desired to express symbolically through
his narrative the doctrine which Christ proclaimed in His insti-
tution of the Holy Communion that the New Covenant which
was symbolized by His blood, was to supersede the Old Covenant
of the Mosaic dispensation, which was symbolized by the Ark
of the Covenant: St. Matthew, XXVI, 27—28. ‘Et accipiens
calicem gratias egit: et dedit illis, dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes.
Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis ef-
fundetur in remissionem peccatorum.”’ So, too, St. Mark, XIV,
23—-24. Even nearer to Robert’s conception, however, is the cor-
responding passage in St. Luke, XXII, 20, where Christ says:
“Hie est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis
fundetur.’”’ The Grail in Robert’s poem is, of course, the caléz

Refperia, Ergdnsungsreihe : 9. 9

Google

130 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

of the Last Supper, and all that the poet does is to send these new
chosen people of God into the Wilderness, with this symbol of
the New Covenant"! substituted for the Ark which was the symbol
of the Old Covenant. It would not have been sufficient, if he had
located these wanderings in Britain. It was necessary that they
should be, in a general way, in the same region, hallowed by the
Scriptures, as the wanderings of the Israelites — only the matter
had to be left somewhat in the vague, for Joseph of Arimathea
and his people were, of course, not fleeing from the land of Egypt.

This interpretation of the later episodes of Robert's Joseph
is confirmed by the author’s adoption of the name, Hebron, as
that of the Grail-keeper, who is to succeed Joseph. We find the
full form,!? ““Hebron”’ in the poem thirteen times, the shortened

** In our Authorized Version we have “testament” in the passages
just quoted from the Gospels, where the Vulgate has “testamentum”.
In the Old Testament, on the other hand, where the Authorized Version
has “covenant”, the Vulgate has usually “foedus”, e.g. Genesis, VI,
18, IX, 13, Exodus, VI, 4, etc.; more rarely, “pactum”, e. g. Genesis,
IX, 11, Leviticus, XXVI, 15, Deuteronomia, IV, 13, ete. ; .; only once
“testamentum”, as far as I have observed, viz. Numeri, X, 44 (arca
testamenti). To be sure, in the New Testament the Vulgate has, Ad
Hebraeos, IX, 15, 16, 17, “testamentum”, where the Authorized
Version has “eovenant”. The Greek Bible uses the same word
throughout in all cases, viz. dsadqxn. So, too, the English Revised
Version uses “covenant’’ everywhere.

** The full form is undoubtedly the original form; for shortened
forms of proper names by the side of the full forms, owing to various
causes, are, of course, frequent in all ages. On the other hand, what
motive would one have had to prefix the syllable, He, to Bron‘, if
that had been the original form of the name? For the rest, the
attempt of the Celticists to identify Robert’s Bron with the Bran of
Celtic legend is on a par with Rhys's attempt (Arthurian Legend,
pp. 321f.) to identify Nascien, Natien (Galahad's ancestor) with the
Nwython (Bede's Naiton, it aeenia) of Welsh legend. But, as I have
pointed out, MLN, XXXIII, 134f., Nascien is indisputably the Naasson
of St. Matthew, I, 4 and St. Luke, III, 32 (genealogies of Christ),
and has nothing to do with the Celts.

In Old French the HT in Hebron being silent and the accent
falling on the second syllable, the aphaeresis of the initial anaccented

Google

Robert de Boron, his. Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 131

form, “ Bron’’, twenty-three times. The variation in the form of

vowel was no great liberty to take for a poet: who was evidently not
a ready writer and who accordingly desired the alternative of a
monosyllabic form, because it was often easier to accommodate to his
line. The phenomenon just mentioned (aphaeresis of initial vowel or
syllable in proper names) is frequent in all languages, but, especially,
so in French. Cp. K. Nyrop, Grammaire Historique de la Langue
Francaise, I, 390 (Copenhagen, 1899), where we have, for example,
Colin (common already in Old French) from Nicolin, Chardin from
Richardin, etc. Such forms, it is true, are generally hypocoristic in
origin, although later they lose this sense.

An example of double forms, parallel to Hebron and Bron,
occurs in Wauchier’s continuation to Chrétien's Perceval, ll. 23707 ff.,
where we have Abrioris (the name of a knight) and Brioris within
two lines of each other and both assured by the metre:

“Frere”, ce dist Abrioris,
“Bien estes enseignies de dis.”
Brioris a tant chemine, etc.

The longer form occurs again ll. 23720, 23771..

In the MSS. of Manessier’s continuation, Il. 35608, 44762,
45292 etc., we have sometimes Agloval, sometimes Gloval as the
name of Perceval’s brother. Without a critical edition, however, one
cannot say whether these forms are purposely made to alternate or
whether we have here simply the common phenomenon of the loss of
initial letter or syllable through scribal errors, which was of such
frequent occurrence in mediaeval MSS. and which occasionally causes
double forms to appear side by side in the same MS. It is possible,
of course, that, through some such corruption, Robert’s MS. of the
Vulgate may have already contained the double forms, Hebron and Bron.

Perhaps, it is, also, advisable to note the occurrence of forms of
proper names with and without initial Es-, which are used side by
side in Old French verse. Thus Escavalon, name of a kingdom in
Chrétien’s Perceval, occurs in Wauchier's continuation, ]. 33625, as
Escavillon, but ll. 33625, 33631, as Cavillon (Kavillon). So in
Wace’s Roman de Brut Arthur's sword is Calhiborc in 1. 13291, but
Escaliborc in 1. 13380. For other examples cp. Zimmer, Zs. f. frz. ‘Spr.
u. Litt., X11’, 236 (1890), and E. Brugger, ibid., XXVIII‘, 103 (1904).

Where shortened forms of proper names from various causes, as
illustrated by the different kinds of examples which I have just cited,
were so frequent, by the side of the longer forms, it is not surprising
that Robert’s poem should also show such double forms, even if we
concede that he was the first to abbreviate Hebron to Bron.

gs

Google

132 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

the name is not due to the scribes, for the correctness of both
forms is established by the metrical requirements, and both ocour
throughout the last episodes of the poem. The shortened form
is the more frequent, simply because it was easier to fit into the
verse than the dissyllabic form.

‘“Hebron’”’ being unquestionably the original form, let us see
whence Robert derived it. The name is undoubtedly taken from
the Old Testament, where it is not only the name of a city, but
of a person!? — one of the grandsons of Levi, to say nothing of
a later character. As all the world knows, the Levites (descen-
dants of Levi) constituted the priestly caste among the Hebrews.'*
It is not so generally known, however, that the guardianship of
the Ark of the Covenant was exclusively entrusted to the descen-
dants of just one of the sons of Levi, viz. Kohath, grandfather
of the most illustrious of the Levites, Moses and Aaron, who were,
accordingly, among the Kohathites. On the subject cp. Namers,
III, 31: “Et custodient arcam, mensamgue et candelabrum, al-
taria et vasa sanctuarii in quibus ministratur, et velum, cunc-
tamque huiuscemodi supellectilem.”'® Cp., too, sbid. IV, 4, 15,
X, 21. Now, according to Numers, III, 19, Caath (Kohath of
our Authorized Version) had four sons: “Filii Caath: Amram et
Tesaar, Hebron et Oziel.” So, too (except for the variant spelling,
““TIsaar”’) in Exodus, VI, 18, I Paralipomenon, VI, 2, 18, XXIII,
12. It would seem from Numers, ITI, 30, that the first chief of
the descendants of Caath (Kohath), after they began to exercise
their sacred functions, was “ Elisaphan, filius Oziel,” but it would
have been impossible for Robert to fit this name into his verse,

** Heinzel, p. 94, noted this, but he made no use of the fact.
In offering a conjecture (which he, himself, at once rejects) that
“Alain” was suggested by “Eliel”, he quotes, I, Paralipomenon
(Chronicles), 5 (misprint for 15), 9, in which the name, Hebron,
occurs, but does not comment on it.

* Cp. Numbers, ch. 3—4, and the book called Leviticus.

** This passage and the other passages concerned in the Old
Testament substantiate the statement of The Jewish Encyclopaedia,
New York, 1904, (under Kohath): “The division of the Kohathites
was more important than the other two Levitical divisions.”

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 133

and the same thing applies, in almost equal measure, to the names
of all the sone of Caath except ‘‘Hebron,” which, besides, would
lend itself more easily to rhyme in French verse than the rest,'¢
and would aleo make a presentable name, as we actually see in -
Robert’s poem, in the abbreviated form. This Hebron, it will
be observed, was an uncle of Moses (son of Amram), whose role
in the wanderings, described in Robert’s poem, is taken by Jo-
seph.!” |

The words of Christ in instituting the Holy Communion which
I have quoted above from the Gospels are not the only passages
of the Scriptures, however, that connect the doctrine of the Atone-
ment with the Old Covenant and its symbols, as they appear in
the Old Testament narrative of the wanderings of the Israelites
in the Wilderness. In his discourse at Capernaum, St. John, VI,
26—58, the day after he had performed the miracle of the loaves
and fishes, Jesus emphasizes in the strongest manner that the
miracle by which his flesh and blood are to give eternal life is to
supersede the miracle by which the Children of Israel were sus-
tained with manna in the desert. Furthermore, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, ch. 9, we have the substitution (under the New Dis-
pensation) of the blood of Christ for the Ark of the Covenant with
its attendant sacrifices set forth in an elaborate comparison.

_ It is plain, then, I believe, that Robert framed the narrative
of the peregrinations of Joseph and his companions with the reli-
gious purpose which I have described above in view, and that
he selected the name of the second keeper of the symbol of
the New Covenant from the family which was especially charged
with the guardianship of the symbol of the Old Covenant.’

** It is actually found in rhyme only twice in the poem (both
times, the full form), ll. 2310, 2510; but when the poet chose the
name on beginning this part of his poem, he would not know, of
course, how often it might prove convenient for him to use it in rhyme.

** Since Joseph filled the part of Moses, Robert gives the name,
Moses, to the hypocrite who is destroyed in trying to occupy the empty
seat at the Grail table.

** In the Kittredge Anniversary Papers, p. 236, note 1 — a

Google

134 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

The author of the Hstotre del Satnt Graal, which is based on
Robert’s Joseph, recognized, as has been noted above, that Robert
was imitating the story of the Israelites in the Wilderness. There
are indications, too, that he was aware of the true relation of the
Grail in Robert’s scheme to the Ark of the Covenant in the Bible
narrative; for not only does he connect the Grail with the Ark
by putting the former in the latter, I, 20, but in the list of the
Grail-keepers which he compiles, I, 289, it would seem that he
drew upon the genealogical lists from which Robert had drawn
the name, “‘Hebron”’. Between Alain, Bron’s son, and Pelleam,
father of Pelles (the Fisher King of the Queste and Galahad’s
grandfather), according to the Estotre, there were the following
Grail-keepers: Josue, Aminadap (Aminadab), Catheloys (Carte-
lois, Carcelois), Manaal (Manael, Manuiel), Lambar (Lambor,
Labain, Labran, Lambart).!® Now ‘‘Josue”’ is, of course, the Vul-
gate equivalent for ‘Joshua’, the name of Moses’ successor in
leading the Israelites out of the Wilderness in our modern versions,
and ‘‘Lambar” is very probably a mere manuscript corruption
of ‘‘Laban”’ (cp. the variant “‘Labain”’), name of Jacob’s father-
in-law. As for the remaining names, ‘“Aminidab” occurs, Exo-
dus, VI, 6 (one of the passages where the Levite genealogy is
given) as the name of Aaron’s father-in-law, just five verses below

passage which is important from the point of view of those who ad-
vocate the Celtic origin of the Grail — A.C. L. Brown remarks: “If
the phrase ‘rich fisher’ meant in origin one who converted many, Peter
ought to be the original Fisher King, certainly not Joseph of Arimathea
or any other figure like Brons.’’ But Joseph, being the preserver of
the Grail according to the story, of course, had the first claim to the
title which Chrétien applied to the Grail-keeper, and, even if Bron’s
name did not originate in the manner I have described, he would be
a proper inheritor of the title, since he was destined to convert the
Britons to Christianity.

** The last three of these names are greatly corrupted, but not
more so than scores of others in our MSS. of the Vulgate cycle, to
say nothing of mediaeval MSS. in general. Thus on the page follow-
ing this list of the Grail-keepers, I, 290, Lambar's slayer is called
in different MSS. “Brulans’, “Valan’ and heaven knows what else,
besides.

Google

Robert de Boron, his Origin, the Date of his Poem etc. 135

the enumeration of the sons of Caath (Kohath). ‘‘Catheloys’’ is
most likely connected with “Caath” in some way. It is to be
remembered that in mediaeval MSS. proper names are, as a rule,
not distinguished by capitals, and, on the other hand, e and o are
constantly confused, so that ‘‘Cathelois’’ may represent a corrup-
tion of “cath fil leui(s).”%° As for the fourth of the Grail-
keepers, we have in the Old Testament genealogical lists already
quoted a name which appears in Kzodus, VI, 15, as “‘Iamuel’’,
but as ““Namuel”’ (the same person) in Numeri, XXVI, 12. Is
not this probably the original of ‘‘Manaal”’, ‘‘Manael”, ‘“‘Ma-
nuiel”? I would point out, too, that “Alphasan” (EHstote, II,
289), name of the holy father-in-law of Josue, the first of the
Grail-keepers in the above list, suggests a connection with “ Elisa-
phan”, Exodus, VI, 22, who, according to Numert, ITI, 30, was the
chief of the Kohathites, when they took charge of the Ark of
the Covenant.

Returning to Robert’s Joseph, we see, then, that the only
Celtic name employed in the poem is Alein,”! and that, obviously,
because its bearer was to be the apostle of the extreme West?*? (1. e.
Britain). To Bron, who is to succeed Joseph as Grail-keeper, the
term, “the Rich Fisher’”’ (ll. 3387, 3416, 3431, 3440, 3477), or “the
Good Fisher” (lL 3456), is applied, because that was the epithet
of the Grail-keeper in Chrétien’s Perceval (1. 3482).

*° “Cathiles” for “Cathites’ (descendant of Caath) with the se-
cond ¢ changed to /, might, also, form the basis of the corruption. In
the Vulgate the descendants of Caath are called “Caathitae’. Cp.
Numeri, Ill, 27, I. Paralipomenon, VI, 54.

** Enygeus (Enyseus), the name of Bron’s wife (Joseph's sister),
still constitutes a puzzle, but the form — manifestly corrupted —
suggests Greek or Latin origin, not Celtic. Heinzel, pp. 93f., tries
to derive it from “Phenicienne” (“Venicienne’’). The argument, however,
depends on a whole chain of hazardous assumptions and is anything
but convincing.

** Cp. ll. 3100Ff.

i a

Google

Chapter XI.

The Theories of Brugger and Lot Concerning the
Origin of the Vulgate cycle. —

We have explained above! what appears to us to be tis true
nature of the influence of Robert de Boron’s Joseph-Merlin on
the formation of the Vulgate cycle. We have, also, endeavored?
to prove that the Didot-Perceval is not a prose rendering of a lost
Perceval of Robert or any other poet, but a late original (prose)
composition of its author. The assumption, however, that Robert
did add a Perceval to his Joseph and Merlen has led some Ar-
thurian scholars to adopt a different view of the evolution of the
prose cycles from that which the present writer has set forth in
the text above. These scholars believe that the earliest (hypo-
thetical) Arthurian prose cycle developed directly out of the prose
renderings of Robert’s poems*® and that the Grail hero in this
earliest (hypothetical) prose cycle must have been Perceval, and
not Galahad, who is actually the Grail hero in all the extant MSS.
of the Vulgate and so-called Robert de Boron cycles of the
prose-romances.‘ Indeed, Brugger has assumed that an extant Per-

7 pp. I, 456f. * Pp. Il, 104ff.

* Miss Weston, Legend of Sir Lancelot, pp. 126#f. (1901), and,
more fully and clearly, Brugger, in his articles named below, note 6.
In her later book, Legend of Sir Perceval, It (1909), however, the
former makes the connection of the prose cycles with Robert much
less direct. Cp. her schema, ibid., p. 328 — also, her “Notes on the
Grail Romances: the Perlesvaus and the Prose Lancelot’, Romania,
XLVI, 314 ff. (1920). On Wechssler’s theory of the origin of the
prose cycles, summarized in his Sage vom heiligen Gral, pp. 126ff.,
cp. note 10, below.

“ Besides Miss Weston and Brugger cp. Sommer, below, p. 146,.
note 3.

Google

The Theories of Brugger and Lot 137

ceval romance — namely, the Perlesvaus — was actually the Queste
branch in this earliest prose cycle.®

On the basis of the above-mentioned view that the prose-
cycles were the result of a direct and orderly evolution from Ro-
bert de Boron’s cycle, Brugger has worked out an elaborate theory
of the development of the prose-cycles with that assumption as
his starting-point.* According to this scholar, Robert's cycle in |
its prose, as well as in its verse, form, consisted of the following
branches: Joseph, Merlin, Perceval,’ Mort Arthur,* and the first
step in the evolution of the cycle was the substitution of the Perles-
vaus® for the Perceval in the series. Into the cycle, as thus con-
stituted, was next imported the Lancelot — hitherto an independent
romance. The Lancelot having been.incorporated into the cycle,
the next step taken was to supplant the Perlesvaus (= Perceval-
Queste) by the Galahad-Queste. From the cycle, when it had
attained this (hypothetical) form, he supposes that the extant Vul-
gate and Robert de Boron cycles of the prose romances were now
developed independently. As I have obeerved (p. II, 153), it is
Brugger’s unwillingness to acknowledge that a romancer could again
enthrone Perceval as the Grail hero, after the character had been
once displaced by Galahad, that has caused him to evolve this
complicated theory of successive series of cycles of which there is

* That is, earliest after the prose renderings of Robert. In this
respect Miss Weston (last passage cited) agrees with Brugger. G. Paris,
Manuel, § 60, dates the Perlesvaus, also, before the Galahad Queste,
although he does not make it actually a part of the cycle.

* In the series of articles entitled L’Enserrement Merlin, which
were running in the Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt. from Vol. XXIX ' (1905)
to Vol. XXXV* (1909). Most important for the statement of the
theory is the first of the series, viz. XXIX’, 56ff., with the schema
of the supposed development of the prose cycles at the end (p. 138).
See, too, the author’s summary of his theory, op. cit., XXXVI", 206f.
(1910). | | 7

* In the main, identica] with the extant Didot-Perceval, accord-
ing to Brugger. See II, p. 111 above.

* Represented in a somewhat shortened (prose) form by the Mort
Arthur at the end of the Didot-Perceval. Cp. op. cit., XXIX’, 70f.

* In a different form from the extant text.

Google

138 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

no evidence in the manuecript tradition.‘ I need not linger over
the matter here, however, since I have attempted elsewhere (I,
468ff., II, 145ff.) to prove (1) that the Didot-Perceval is not a
prose-rendering of a lost Perceval by Robert de Boron and that we
do not know, indeed, whether Robert ever wrote such a poem, (2)
that the Perlesvaus is later and not earlier than the Galahad Queste.
If my conclusions in regard to the Perlesvaus are true, this, of
itself, would be fatal to Brugger’s theory.

With regard to this scholar’s assumption that the Pseudo-
Robert-de-Boron cycle of the prose romances is not based on the
extant Vulgate cycle, but is derived from a common (lost) source,'!
it may be remarked that the Mort Arthur branch of the latter
is demonstrably a mere modification of the corresponding branch
in the former.'? The same relation prevails, also, as between the
Merlin branches of the two cycles.'® Furthermore, as we have

*° For virtually every stage in the evolution of these hypothetical
lost cycles Brugger assumes that redactions of various branches are
different from those that have been actually preserved in our MSS.
What likelihood is there of a theory's being correct, when it requires
the acceptance of such a number of unprovable assumptions? The
difficulty of any fruitfal discussion of Brugger's theory is increased by
the fact that its author gives us no definite idea as to the supposed
forms of these various hypothetical redactions.

The same is true, in an even larger measure, of Wechssler's
theory, summarized in his Sage vom h. Gral, pp. 126ff. This deals
to such an extent with purely hypothetical works that it furnishes no
real basis for discussion. For comment on his similar assumptions ‘in
regard to Robert cp. p. 127.

** So, too, before Brugger, Heinzel, in his Grail treatise, pp. 168ff.
(1892) and Wechssler, Habilitationsschrift, p. 5 (1895).

** For the proof cp. RR, IV, 429ff. The Spanish Demanda
contains the Pseudo-Robert Mort Arthur. Sommer has, also, recog-
nized the undoubted dependence of Pseudo-Robert on the Vulgate in
respect to this branch. Cp. Romania, XXXVI, 585 (1907) and Zs.
Jj. rom. Ph., Beiheft 47, p. LH, note 1 (1913). The fact that the
Pseudo-Robert Mort Arthur is derived, beyond question, from the
Vulgate Mort Arthur, of itself, makes an irreparable breach in the
theory of Brugger, etc.

*® G. Paris, Introduction to the Huth-Merlin, p. LXIV, asserted

Google

The Theories of Brugger and Lot 139

seen,'* there is no reason to believe that the Pseudo-Robert cycle ever
contained a Lancelot, or that its lost branch on the early history
of the Grail differed materially, if at all, from the Vulgate KHs-
toire. Lastly, the contamination of the Queste of the pseudo-
Robert cycle with the prose 7'ristan, which, in turn, presupposes
the Vulgate cycle, shows that, in respect to this branch, too, the
Vulgate cycle is the earlier.1

that the Merlin continuation in that work, is entirely independent of
the Vulgate Merlin continuation and that the authors. of these two
continuations executed them “sans se connaitre”. So, too, Wechssler,
op. cit., p.5, and Bragger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXIX} 109.
(For some remarks on this theory cp. Bruce, MPh., XVI, 8411) But
E[lla] Vetterman, in her Die Balendichtungen und thre Quellen (Zs. f.
rom. Ph., Beiheft 60), pp. 271ff. (Halle, 1918), has shown from the
episodes concerning Arthur’s wars with Rion, Lot and their allies and
from the Escalibor episodes that the Huth-Merlin continuation is de-
pendent on the Vulgate. It would have been strange, indeed, if this
had not been the case, since the author of the former displays an
intimate familiarity with the other members of the Vulgate cycle.
Cp. Vetterman, pp. 226ff.

** I, 468 ff.

On this subject cp. saticelly2 A. Pauphilet “La Queste du
Saint Graal du MS. Bibl. Nat. Fr. 343”, Romania, XXXVI, 591 ff.
{1907). G. Paris, Huth- Merlin, I, pp. LIXt. and Manuel, § 60, was,
doubtless, led to regard the Queste of the Vulgate as a recasting of
the Psendo-Robert Queste, instead of vice versa, by the fact that the
latter bore Robert’s name, which, however, it really had no right to.
The only argument which he advances is based on the circumstance
that the Vulgate Queste (VI, 22f., 184) gives the affair of the killing
of Bandemagus by Gawain in a mutilated form which renders it vir-
taally unintelligible, whereas the Pseudo-Robert Queste, as Paris was
able to infer even before the publication of the Portuguese Demanda,
relates this incident clearly and in full. In the Vulgate, it is true, no
narrative is given of the fatal combat between Gawain and Baude-
magus; only from the inscription on the tomb of the latter at the
white abbey (p. 184) do we learn that Gawain slew him. In Pseudo-
Robert, on the other hand, the whole story of the combat is told. In
the opinion of the present writer, however, the deficiency in the Val-
gate narrative must be due to an omission in the archetype of the
extant MSS. of the Vulgate Queste; for it is inconceivable that the

Google

140 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

According to Brugger’s hypothesis, no attempt was made to
modify substantially any individual romance, by itself — the modi-

author of that romance would have left his account of the death of
Baudemagus, one of the oldest characters in Arthurian romance, pur-
posely unintelligible. The situation is probably the same as in the
Spanish Demanda, ch. 393, and the Harleian Morte Arthur, 11. 933ff.,
where injudicious condensation on the part either of the authors of
these works or of the scribes of the MSS. which they used has pro-
duced an unintelligible narrative — only, in these cases, the (approxi-
mate) original narratives of the incidents in question have survived, so
that we are not left to conjecture on the subject. Cp. on the two
passages — respectively, RR, IV, 429f. and Anglia, XXIII, 85f. On
the other hand, the author of the Pseudo-Robert Queste probably had
before him a copy of the Vulgate which was not marred by the defi-
ciency indicated above. If not, then he made good the deficiency from
his own invention.

Apart from the contamination with the prose 7nistan, Heinzel,
op. cit., pp. 169f., mentions the following additional features of the
Pseudo-Robert Queste as pointing to a late origin: 1. its tendency to mix
up with the Grail adventures other adventures that are commonplaces and
have nothing to do with this main theme of the romance. 2. the tendency
to introduce incidents from the general stock of stories current in the
Middle Ages — especially, incidents of a sensational nature, as of rape
or incest. Nevertheless, he denies the dependence of the Pseudo-
Robert Queste (Demanda) upon the Vulgate on the following grounds: —
1. it contains the account of the slaying of Baudemagus, as the Vul-
gate does not. 2. the greater prominence of Lancelot in the Vulgate
Queste seems to show that this was later than Pseudo-Robert. 3. the
Vulgate Queste evinces a more perfect adjustment to the narrative of
the Eséoire. :

As regards these points, No. 1 I have already dealt with, and
No. 2 is a purely subjective ground for deciding a question of relative
date. With respect to No. 3, the Estoire of the Pseudo-Robert cycle
is lost and the Queste of this cycle was adjusted to that version of
the Early History of the Grail, not to the Hstotre of the Vulgate,
with which Heinzel made his comparison. In any event, a less perfect
adjustment does not necessarily mean earlier composition. Even the
greatest writers, like Tasso and Keats, have spoiled their own work
in re-writing it, so that there is no reason to imagine that a mediaeval
author of no remarkable genius, in rewriting an earlier romance —
the composition of another man — may not have neglected such
matters of adjustment as those referred to by Heinzel. There is no

The Theories of Brugger and Lot 141

fication in the successive stages took place all along the line, and
the development was always by cycles.'* He recognizes, however,
‘that the Lancelot was originally by a different author from the
other members of the cycle!” and he seems to imply that diffe-
rent redactors took part in the development of the successive cycles
of his theory which finally resulted in the Vulgate cycle (to say
nothing of the Pseudo-Robert cycle).!* Thus, according to this
scholar, as well as his predecessors, the Vulgate cycle is of com-
posite authorship, although he supposes that the redactors of each
of his hypothetical cycles aimed at preserving a unity of design
for the whole.'®

Recently, however, a theory concerning the origin of the
romances of the Vulgate cycle which involves the assumption of
an even more perfect unity of design than is assumed in Brugger’s
has been advanced by one of the most eminent of Arthurian scho-

reason, then, to conclude with Heinzel that the Pseudo-Robert Queste
was derived not from the Vulgate, but from a common source.

** It is to be remembered that these cycles are altogether hypo-
thetical.

7 Cp. e.g. Zs. fi frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXXVI*, 205.

*® He observes loc. cit.: “die Gralzyklen sind nicht einfach das
Werk von Kopisten, die ein paar selbstindige Romane zusammengestellt
hatten, sondern das Werk von Redaktoren, die ein Ganzes schaffen
wollten.” It is not clear, however, whether he means that there was
just one redactor for each of his hypothetical cycles or whether there
were more. In view of the enormous extent which one is compelled
to assume for these hypothetical cycles after the Lancelot became
incorporated into them and the labour which the expansion of this
branch and the composition of the new Galahad branches (Estowre
and Queste) involved, it appears necessary to postulate more than one
redactor for each stage in the later stages of the development of the
cycles — yet the cooperative composition of fiction on this scale has
no parallel in literary history. For a fuller discussion of these matters,
cp. RR, IV, 462ff. .

** Cp. the quotation in the preceding note. How little such a
unity is really preserved in the Vulgate version is manifest from the
inconsistencies, repetitions, etc., mentioned Part III, above.

Google

142 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

lars — Ferdinand Lot.” Contrary to the theory of plural author-
ship, which had been held hitherto by all students of these matters,
Lot has endeavored to prove that the whole of the Vulgate cycle — _
the Merlen, alone, excepted — is the work of one author, who
planned and composed the different branches of the cycle as parts
of a single design. He bases his theory on the following obeer-
vations: *! |

1. Throughout the Lancelot the different episodes of that
romance are intimately interwoven with each other in a way that
is inexplicable on the hypothesis of interpolation or multiple
authorship. Moreover, the various branches are bound together
in a similar manner: For example, cross references between the
-Lancelot and the other branches are frequent, and, in some cases,
episodes that are begun in one branch of the cycle are only com-
pleted in a later branch. 2. The Lancelot exhibits throughout
a systematic chronological scheme. 3. A unity of plan, spirit,
language and style is manifest throughout the Vulgate cycle.
4. All the different branches show the use of the same sources.

ew ee ee

*© in his Etude sur le Lancelot en prose (Paris, 1918): fasci-
cule No. 226 of the Bibliothéque de I’Ecole des Hautes Etudes. For
the opinions of scholars heretofore on the subject of the plural author-
ship of the cycle, cp. Bruce, RR, IX, 241 ff. (1918).

** These points are made the subjects of successive chapters in
Lot's treatise. It is impossible to deal adequately here with his de-
tailed and elaborate arguments on the points in question. What follows
in the text above is merely a summary of the objections to the theory
of single authorship which I have already offered in fuller form at the
beginning of my article entitled, “The Composition of the Old French
Prose Lancelot”, RR, IX, 241ff., 353ff. (1918), X, 48ff., 97ff. (1919), .
and in my review of Lot’s book, thid. X, 377 ff. (1919). In the first
of these articles (the proofs of which 1 had corrected before the publi-
cation of Lot's work) my criticism, it is true, was directed against the
theory of single authorship for the Lancelot alone, but what I urged
there tells, of course, with even greater force against the theory of
single authorship for the whole cycle (minus the Merlin). Lot's
theory is, also, rejected by A. Pauphilet in his important review of
the above-mentioned treatise, Romania, XLV, 514 ff. (1919), and by
Miss Weston, ibdid., XLVI, 314ff. (1920).

Google

The Theories of Brugger and Lot 143

There are grave a priors objections, however, to Lot’s theory,
- for it is to be remembered that, unless we accept an earlier date
for the brief prose-renderings of Robert de Boron’s Joseph and
Merlin, these romances of the Vulgate cycle are the first spe-
cimens of prose fiction in any of the great literary languages of
Modern Europe, and that, on the other hand, with the exception
of one or two of the vast French romances of the seventeenth
century (e. g. Mile. de Scudéry’s Le Grand Cyrus and Clélie) the
four branches combined would constitute the longest and most in-
tricate work of fiction in all European literature. Now, it is
extremely improbable that the first work of modern prose fiction
should, also, be the longest and most intricate in the whole history
of European prose fiction, with the exceptions just indicated. Such
length and intricacy are inconsistent, too, with the circumstance
that not only French prose fiction, but French prose of any kind,
was then in its infancy, and that, as a matter of fact, the only
other French prose work of even moderate length which had been
written down to the time that the Vulgate cycle was composed —
viz. Villehardouin’s chronicle of the conquest of Constantinople
in 120422 (which was finished certainly not earlier than 1207) —
was considerably less than one twentieth the size of the above-
mentioned four branches combined. Much nearer the truth, then,
on @ priori grounds, would seem to be the theory, generally held,
that the central romance of the series, the Lancelot, as we have
it, is the product of a long evolution and the work of different
hands, and that still other authors are responsible for the remain-
ing branches of this cycle.

As regards the specific arguments, indicated above, which the
French scholar has brought forward in support of his hypothesis,
it may be remarked of the first two, that, if in the primitive
Lancelot (which was probably, the first, or so-called Galehaut sec-
tion of the romance, in a somewhat shorter form)** these two

** In N. de Wailly’s edition (Paris, 1874), it fills only 150
octavo pages, which is the equivalent of considerably less than 75 of
the quarto pages in Sommer’s edition of the Lancelot.

** Cp. Bruce. RR, X, 48ff. — What follows in the text above
is summarized from my review of Lot's treatise, ibid. X, 377 ff.

Google

144 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

structural devices were found, naturally the continuators of that
romance would, likewise, adopt them, and it would not be hard
for euch interpolators or continuators to fit their work so exactly
to that of their predecessors as to render the ag of juncture
of the two, so to speak, invisible.*4

Furthermore, it is difficult to concede Lot’s contention that
the cycle, as a whole, exhibits a unity of plan, spirit, language
and style. On the contrary, there are, as has been already noted;
flagrant inconsistencies and contradictions between certain bran-
ches, and, also, in some cases, within the individual branches. One
may observe, moreover, every variety of style with the limits
of the cycle, from the baldest rubbish, as in the long quest for
Lancelot which follows upon the adventures of Bohort in the
Lancelot — where we have scores of pages of unsurpassed insipi-
dity, or even absurdity — to the grand mystic vision of Galahad
and his companions at the Grail castle in the Queste, or the sub-
lime epic of the destruction of Arthur and the knights of the
Round Table, together with the translation of the wounded king
‘to Avalon, at the end of the Mort Artu. Still further, as we have
seen, the individual branches, .taken as a whole, differ from each
other. In the Queste there is not a trace of the dramatic power
that distinguishes the Mort Artu; in the Estotre there is a love
of romantic and sensational incident of a purely secular kind which
is not found in the Queste — and so on. Finally, as regards the
alleged use of the same sources in the four branches, this is true
only to a limited extent, the observation being admissible only
with reference to such sources as Wace’s Brut (or a lost expansion
of the same), the Tristan poems, and Chrétien’s romances (es-
pecially his Perceval and its earlier continuations), which were the
chief Arthurian works at the time that the Vulgate cycle was com-
posed, and which, therefore, naturally served as sources to more
than one member of that cycle.

* As a matter of fact, Miss Weston, Romania, XLVI, 327ft.
(1920), has pointed out some chronological inconsistencies in the series.

Google

-Chapter XII.
The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle.

A question of fundamental importance in the study of the
prose romances is the following: Was there ever a stage in the
formation of the Vulgate cycle when Perceval, and not Galahad,
was the hero of the Grail quest? For, of course, Perceval, as
Chrétien’s poem shows, to say nothing of Pseudo-Wauchier and
Wauchier or of Wolfram von Eschenbach, was, undoubtedly, the
original hero! of this quest.

As a matter of fact, it has been very commonly assumed
that a Queste of which Perceval was the hero once actually oc-
cupied in the series the place which in the Vulgate, as we have it,
is filled by the Queste, of which Galahad is the hero. Some dis-
tinguished Arthurian scholars have gone still further and identi-
fied this supposed Perceval Queste with the Perlesvaus.

The main basis for the above-mentioned assumption is. the
fact that in three passages of certain MSS. of the prose Lancelot
— the number of MSS. supporting the reading in question varies
for each passage? — Perceval is still alluded to as the Grail Winner,

* Wechssler, in his Sage vom heiligen Gral (Halle, 1898),
inspired by Heinzel, Grail treatise, p. 135, tried to give this distinction
to Galahad, but his theory has been universally rejected.

* The passages in question are quoted by Sommer, Vulgate
Version of the Arthurian Romances, I, pp. XIIIf. In the case of
two of these passages the Perceval allusions are limited to two MSS.
and one MS., each, respectively. Obviously, these MSS. have no
authority as against the overwhelming mass of MSS. that stand out
against them. Moreover, the sole MS. authority (Bibl. Nat. 754) for
one of the Perceval allusions is vitiated by another blunder of its own,
viz. the statement that Perceval achieved the Grail quest after Lan-
celot’s death, which does not accord with any known version of Per-
ceval’s story. —- I have discussed these matters in detail in RR, IV.
468ff. (1913) and in the notes below.

Relperia, Exgtingungsreihe: 9. 10

Google

146 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

although, generally speaking, as we have seen, Galahad enjoys
that honor in the Vulgate cycle. Such allusions have been inter-
preted by certain scholars* as survivals, through the negligence
of scribes, from an earlier (hypothetical) stage in the evolution
of the Vulgate cycle, when, as has just.been said, they imagine
a Perceval-Queste to have filled the place which is actually filled
in our extant MSS. by the Galahad-Queste. In only one of these
passages,‘ however, — and that an extremely corrupt one — is

* This view is implied in P. Paris, Romans de la Table Ronde.
So, too, with G. Paris, La littérature francaise au moyen age § 60,
63 (Paris, 1888 et seq.). For his meagre and vague expressions of
opinion regarding the relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate cycle,
cp. Nitze’s summary in his Perlesvaus dissertation, pp. 27f. It is
Brugger, however, who has developed this theory most fully. Cp.
Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXIX’, 77#f. (1905). Somewhat similar to
this theory is that of Sommer, Komania, XXXVI, 369ff., 543ff.
(1907) and MPh., V, 291ff. (1908). He postulates a lost Perceval-
Queste, in prose, — which was different from the Perlesvaus — as
once occupying the place of our Galahad-Queste. Similar, it would
seem, to Sommer’s theory is Miss Weston’s Legend of Sir Lancelot,
pp. 120ff. The theories of these scholars are, also, based on the
Perceval allusions in the Lancelot MSS., but the want of harmony
between the Perlesvaus and the Vulgate cycle, doubtless, deterred
them from identifying their hypothetical Perceval with the Perlesvaus.

* The three passages are quoted by Sommer, Vulgate Version,
Vol. I, p. XDI. I have given two notes below the reading of No. 1
— the only passage of real importance — according to MS. 768
(Bibl. Nat.). The other two respectively are as follows: No.2. We
have a reference to “li conte de Perceval” in two Lancelot MSS. —
Lansdowne 757 (British Museum) and MS. 751 (Bibl. Nat.). The
words are:

“Et le grant conte de lancelot couuient repairier en la fin a
perceval qui est chies et la fin de toz les contes as autres cheualiers.
Et tuit sont branches de lui por ce quil acheua le grant queste. Et
li contes de perceval meismes est une branche del haut conte del graal
qui est chiez de tout les contes. Car por le graal se traueillent tuit
li bon cheualier dont lan parole de celui tans.”

For the inferences which Miss Weston has drawn from this
passage cp. her Sir Lancelot, p. 125. No one, however, can account
for the whims and blunders of individual scribes. There were, of

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 147

the Perceval allusion backed by manuscript authority that is suf-
ficient to render it worthy of serious consideration — namely, the
passage (Sommer, III, 29), where, in connection with the praise
of the beauty of Pelles’s daughter, Perceval is called Pelles’s son
and, also, the Grail Winner. The MS. followed by Sommer in
his edition of the Lancelot has Galahad, in this place, and not
Perceval, but a large majority of the MSS. here read Perceval.§
On the other hand, even the most intelligible MS.® of this majority

course, several romances in which Perceval was the Grail Winner and
these monkish scribes — granting that they are independent of each
other — may have taken his side against Lancelot, because of the
latter’s notorious adultery.

No. 3. A single MS., No. 754 (Bibl. Nat.) has, also, the following
passage in which Perceval is said to have delivered Merlin from the
confinement to which he had been committed by Vivien through the
spell which she won from him. Here it is declared that no one ever
saw Merlin after his confinement until be was delivered by Perceval
“qui vit la grant merueille del graal apres la mort de Lancelot si com
li contes vos devisera ca auant.” |

This passage does not really conflict with the Galahad-Queste,
for in that Queste, VI, 189, Perceval did actually see the marvel of
the Grail. For the rest, however, the scribe has blundered in making
Perceval survive Lancelot. He dies at the end of the Queste, VI,
198, whilst Lancelot is still alive.

* For the readings of the individual MSS. and early prints cp.
Sommer, MPh., V, 293ff. (1908). That Sommer here attaches an
exaggerated importance to the Parceuau of the British Museum MS.,
Royal 19, C. XII, has been shown by Brugger, 7s. /f. fre. Spr. u.
Ltt., XL? AT, note 11.

’s MS. 768 (Bibl. Nat.), fol. 12, verso, col. b. The text has been
printed by G. Brauner, Der altfranzisische Prosaroman von Lan-
celot del Lac. I Branche, p. 48: Marburger Beitrdge zur roma-
nischen Philologie, Heft II (Marburg, 1911), whence it has been
reprinted by Brace, RR, IV, 469 and Lot, Lancelot, p.112. Like
MS. 768 are MS. 118 and its dependent, Arsenal 3479. Only two
Jadies, it is said in this passage, could compare with Guinevere in
beauty. The one was Heliene-sanz-per, “Et l'autre fu fille au Roi
Mehaignie, ce fa li rois Pelles, qui fu peres Perlesvax a celui qui vit
apertement les Granz Mervoilles del Graal, et acompli lo Siege Perilleus
de la Table Reonde, et mena a fin les aventures del Reiaume Perilleus
Aventurens, ce fu li regnes de Logres. Cele fu sa suer, si fu de si

10*

Google

148 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

makes Perceval a son of Pelles — a conception of their relationship
which is found nowhere else in Arthurian romance. Moreover,
as in all other MSS., whether the reading of the passage be Gala-
had or Perceval, we have in this text Pelles (the Fisher King
of the Vulgate cycle) identified with “the Maimed King,” which
contradicts the whole tradition of the Vulgate cycle.? Still further,
the alternative names here given to Perceval’s sister do not, either
of them, appear attached to her any where else in Arthurian ro-
mance. ,
It will be observed, then, that this passage on which the
theory in question is based, even according to the reading of the
most intelligible MS., is so marred by contradictions of the fixed
traditions of the cycle, and of Arthurian romance, in general, as
to suggest the hand of a blundering interpolator. If we examine
the other MSS., however, the same thing is suggested with even
greater force — for nearly all of these MSS., whether they read
Perceval or Galahad here, contain the absurdity of making the
mother of the Grail hero at the same time his sister.®

The passage, then, swarms with. errors, and even if Perceval

grant biaute que nas des contes ne dit que nule qui a son tens fust,
se poist de biaute a li aparellier, si avoit non Amide en sornom, et
an son droit non Heliabel. (MS. 768, Bibl. Nat. fol. 12, verso,
col. b). This reading of the passage, thongh still open to the ob-
jectione which I have mentioned in the text above, makes at least
good sense, and has been accepted by Lot, op. cit., pp. 112ff., as
representing accurately the original text of the Lancelot, but cp. my
criticism of his views in RR, X, 386f.

* In certain MSS. of the Queste, Vi. 150, we have a similar
blunder. This is the only exception. Cp. Bruce, MPh., XVI, 122ff.

* Take, for example, the reading of the British Museum MS.
Additional, 10293, printed by Sommer, III, 29: “Et l'autre fu fille au
Roi Mahaignie. Che fu li rois Pelles qui fu peires a Amite meire
Galaat chelui qui vit apertement les grans meruelles del graal. Et
acompli le siege perillous de la Table Reonde. Et mena a fin les
auentures del roialme perelleus & aventureus. Che fu li roialmes de
Logres. Cele fu sa suer si fu de si grant biaute que nus des contes
ne dist que a son tans fust ne se peust de biaute a lui apparellier.
Et si avoit non Amite en sornon & on son droit non Helizabel. '

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle. 149

were the reading of all MSS., instead of simply the majority,
it 18 very questionable whether, under the circumstances, we should
be justified in drawing the far-reaching inference which is implied
in the hypothesis that a Perceval-Queste once held the place in
the Vulgate cycle which in the extant MS. tradition is held ex-
clusively by a Galahad-Queste.* What is virtually a single cor-
rupt passage cannot outweigh the testimony of the whole remainder
of the vast manuscript tradition.

As a matter of fact, however, this same incurably corrupt
passage, itself, contains an indication that, despite the numerical
preponderance of the MSS. that offer the reading, Perceval, the
‘Grail hero who is referred to, must, after all, have been originally
Galahad. This indication lies in the double naming: “Et si avoit
non Amite en sornon & en son droit non Helizabel.’’ For this
double naming has no meaning as applied to Perceval’s sainted
sister, but it is strictly in accord with the conceptions of the
Galahad Queste. Just as Lancelot, in baptism, was given a name
with sacred (Biblical) associations, viz. Galahad (Galaad), but lost
it through unchastity and received the secular name, Lancelot
(Sommer, III, 3), so, for a similar reason, after losing her vir-
ginity to Lancelot, Pelles’s daughter, who was christened Els-
cabeth (Helizabel, etc.), the name of the mother of John the Bap-
tist, received a secular name, Amite (Amide).'

* | have suggested, RR, IV, 470, certain possibilities in the case
and more recently, iiid., X, 387, that a scribe who knew of Perceval
as the Grail Winner through romances outside of the Vulgate cycle
and who possibly had only a superficial acquaintance with the Vulgate
cycle, itself, as a whole, may through inadvertence or actual igno-
rance, have introduced Perceval for Galahad here into the manuscript
tradition, in the first instance. The variants of Perceval’s name that
are commonest in the MSS. at this point, viz., Pelesvaus etc. (cp.
MPh., V, 293, note 1) appear to show that he had the Perlesvaus
in mind. We have, too, the same form in the other isolated MSS.

*° For a faller discussion of these matters cp. RR, IX, 259f.
Most MSS. do not have the name of Pelles’s daughter spelt Elizabeth,
bat the Helizabel, Heltabel, etc. which they offer are obviously mere
corruptions of that name. I have suggested that Amite and Amide
are variants of Amice, the name of a character in the Meraugis de

Google

150 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

It would seem, then, after all, that this much debated pas-
sage did not belong to the original text of the Lancelot, but, like
the other Grail materials in that romance, was of later intro-
duction."!

Portlesquez. An even earlier scribal blunder in this passage, I be-
lieve, was the substitation of suer (“Cele fa sa suer”’) for mere. Cp.
op. cit., X, 386f.

The double naming was, no doubt, imitated from the Estotre del
Saint Graal. Cp., on the subject, RR, IX, 250. In that romance,
as in actual life, pagans, when converted, were re-named. Hence the
chief characters have double names. Seraphe is renamed Nascten,
Evalac, Mordrain, etc. In the case of Lancelot and Amide, we have
the process reversed. Instead of acquiring new names by baptism, as
a sign of regeneration from sin, they lose their baptismal 1 names and
are given others, because of their lapses into sin.

1! ‘The introduction probably occurred very late, for the whole
passage is obviously imitated from the eulogy of Guinevere in the
Vulgate Merlin continuation, Sommer, II, 159. For a better text of
this eulogy (printed first by Sommer, MPh., V, 305) and my discussion
of the question involved cp. RR, IV, 257f. This Merlin continuation
is generally recognized as the. latest part of the Vulgate cycle.

lf my refutation of the inference that has been drawn from these
Perceval allusions in the Lancelot MSS. is sound, there is no need of
any further discussion of Brugger’s hypothesis, Zs. 7 Sr. Spr. u. Latt.,
XXXII’, 192ff. (1908), XXXVI", 198ff. (1910), and elsewhere, that
it was not the extant Perlesvaus to which the Lancelot was adjusted
in this hypothetical stage of the evolution of the Vulgate cycle, but a
(supposed) lost later version of the romance. He is driven to this
hypothesis, of course, by the fact that the extant version does not fit
in with the Vulgate cycle in the slightest degree. Since it makes
Guinevere die long before Arthw’s wars with Mordred —- the latter's
name not even occwring in the romance — it is irreconcilable with
the only Mort Artu that is preserved to us in the MSS. of the Vul-
gate cycle or, indeed, in any other version of the Mort Arthur theme.
For Guinevere is in every one of them, and, except in that of the
Didot-Perceval, is the great moving force in them all. Brugger re-
cognizes this, of course, and postulates, accordingly, op. cit. XXIX',
81, an hypothetical Mort Arthur, in which there was no Guinevere
to harmonize with his hypothetical Perlesvaus. But this setting aside
of the uniform manuscript tradition in favor of one’s own theories
cannot be taken scriously. -- Still further, the conception of the con-

Google

The Relatson of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 151

As regards the specific identification of the Perlesvaus with
the hypothetical Perceval-Queste in question, a passage which
stands at the end of a single MS. of this romance,!* and that not the
best,!® has often been taken, also, as an indication that it originally
constituted merely one branch of a cycle’ — either the Vulgate
(in an earlier form) or some other. The passage in question states

clusion of the Grail is entirely different in the Perlesvaus and Vulgate
Queste. — But where so little is alike, it is useless to point out
farther differences between the versions. Brugger, op. cit., XXXVI’,
199, cites as portions of this hypothetical Perlesvaus actually preserved
what he calls the Perceval Enfances in Sommer, V, 377ff. and MPh.,
V, 322ff. (Tristan MS. Brit. Museum, 5474). But there is no reason
to assume this. There is no ground for doubting that the second of
these texts is anything more than an individual variant of the con-
clusion of the Lancelot. Sommer's edition shows that we have variants
for other portions of this branch. As for the usual text of this con-
clusion, V, 3771f., it betrays familiarity with other branches of the Vual-
gate cycle. Cp. RR, IX, 391 ff. On the other hand, the introduction of
Perceval adventures at the end of the Lancelot means nothing. The
writers who expanded the primitive Lancelot introduced any characters
or any adventures where they pleased. The detail which Brugger
cites, loc. cit., from the Venjance Nostre Seigneur is manifestly too
slight to have any value in proving that the Perlesvaus underwent an
entirely new redaction.

The MS. is the Brussels MS. Bibliothéque de Bourgogne,
No. 11145, on which Potvin'’s edition is based. For this passage
see Potvin, p. 348: It runs as follows:

“Apres iceste esteire, conmenee li contes si conme Brians des
Iles guerpi le roi Artus por Lancelot que il n’amoit mie et conme il
aseara le roi Claudas, qui le roi Ban de Benoic toli sa terre. Si
parole cis contes conment il le conquist et par quel maniere, et si com
Galobrus de la Vermeille Lande vint a la cort le roi Artas por aidier
Lancelot, quar il estoit de son lignage. Cist contes est mout lons et
mout. aventureus et poisanz; mes li livres s’en tera ore atant trusqu a
une autre foiz.”

** Hatton 82 (Bodleian Library) is the best. Cp. Nitze, MPh.,
XVU, 152, 166 (1920). The passage is, also, wanting in the Welsh.
translation of the Perlesvaus and in the early prints.

** Cp. e. g., Heinzel, p. 177, Brugger, 2s. f. fra. Spr. u. Litt.,
XXIX’, 77 ff.

Google

152 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

that after the Perlesvaus follows the tale of how Brians des Illes,
on account of his hostility to Lancelot, deserted Arthur and joined
Claudas — the story of whose war against Ban it also contained —
and how Perceval’s cousin, Galobrus de la Vermeille Lande, came
to Lancelot’s aid. The writer lauds this continuation of the Perles-
vaus, but, after all, postpones the relation of these matters.*®

Even if we grant, however, that this passage is not the later
addition of an unauthorized ecribe and that such a narrative as
that which is indicated in it was really executed,!* this would
not justify the hypothesis that our romance was merely a branch
of a large cycle. The author might simply have decided — pos-
sibly as an afterthought — to take as a starting-point adventures
of Brians des Illes which he had related already and add, for the
entertainment of his patrons, a continuation of his romance of
a more secular character. All the Lancelot materials of the Perles-
vaus acoord perfectly well with the Vulgate Lancelot in the form
in which the latter has come down to us"? and there is no ground for
supposing that the author of the passage under discussion had in
mind anything more than a new series of adventures such as make
up that work.’®

%* Nitze gives MPh., XVII, 612, note 2, the romances in which
Brians des Illes occurs. He observes that the “Vulgate form of the
Prose Lancelot” is not among them. I am inclined to think that the
author of the Perlesvaus, however, really had in mind here Lancelot’s
enemy in the prose Lancelot, the Lord of Dolerons Gard, whose name
was Brandins (Brandis, Branduz) des Liles. Cp. Sommer, Il, 151 ff.
The confusion of Brians and Brandins would have been easy. But
even if this conjecture is incorrect, the fact that Nitze calls attention
to it would have no significance. If the writer in question was going to
try his hand at new Lancelot adventures, he did not have to limit
himself to the characters or incidents of the existing Lancelot. Com-
pare, for example, the procedure of the author of the Livre d’ Artus
of MS. 337 with relation to the Vulgate Merlin-continuation.

** It had not been composed at the time that the passage under
discussion was written and we have no reason to believe that it was
ever actually composed.

*7 On this subject Cp. p. 162 below.

** The question is essentially the same as that which I have

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 153

In regard to the questions of date and sources of the Perlesvaus,
two influences have led certain scholars’® to assign a relatively early
date to this romance: 1. the exaggerated view that has generally
prevailed concerning the seriousness with which the mediaeval ro-
mancers and their patrons took the inventions of the former*
and the consequent reluctance to concede that Perceval could be
restored to the position of Grail hero, when Galahad had once
supplanted him.*! 2. the Perceval allusions in the Lancelot MSS.,

argued, p. 150, above. Despite the requirements of Brugger's
theory, it is obvious that an author who desired to compese a new version
of some branch of the eycle did not have to provide new branches of all
the cycles. Thus it is not necessary to assume that the allusions in
the Perlesvaus (pp. 26, 30, 48, etc.) to Perceval’s previous, abortive,
visit to the Grail castle were drawn from a lost previous branch of
a Perlesvaus cycle. A man can refer to other people’s books as well
as his own and this visit had been related by Chrétien. If he chose
to alter Chrétien's conceptions, in some respects, that was his own
affair. Similarly with the allusions to the sinful passion of Lancelot
and Guinevere (pp. 130, 132). This all stood in the Vulgate Queste
and Mort Artu.

** G. Paris, Manuel, § 60, 63, and Brugger in the passages
cited above, p. 146, note 3. So, too, Nitze, for the latest expression
of whose views see his article, “On the Chronology of the Grail Ro-
mances”, MPh., XVII, 151ff. (1919), 605ff. (1920). W. Golther,
Zs. f. fr. Spr. u. Litt., XXV1", 12f. (1903) accepts Nitze’s results.
Cp. too, Suchier, in his and Birch-Hirschfeld’s Geschichte der franzé-
sischen Literatur*, p. 169 (1913).

** I have already discussed this matter, which is fundamental for
our interpretation of mediaeval romance, above.

*? Brugger expresses himself strongly on this point, Zs. f. frz.
Spr. u. Liit., XXIX*, 78 (1905). As Lot has observed, Etude sur
le Lancelot en prose, p. 286, note 2, it is primarily Bragger's
relactance to make the concession referred to in the text that has
driven him to evolve his intricate theory concerning the development
of the prose cycles. But in Arthurian romance, as in other forms of
literature, older traditions about any given characters often survive by
the side of those of later origin. See the present writer's reply, RR,
IV, 250, note 66 (1913), to Miss Weston, whose views, Sir Perceval,
Ii, 340 (1909), are similar to Brugger’s, although she does not date
the Perlesvaus so early. As especially pertinent to the question, note

Google

154 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

which we have discussed above, and which, in most cases, present
Perceval’s name in its Perlesvaus forms.”

On the other hand, the majority of scholars* have regarded
the Perlesvaus as among the very latest of the Grail romances.

First, with respect to the question of date, the indisputable
evidence leaves us still within very wide limits — 1191, on the
one hand, and 1250 on the other — so that any nearer dating
must depend on the conclusions which we reach as to the sources
of the romance.* Now, the author of the Perlesvaus states quite

that Gerbert and Manessier, although familiar with the Galahad-Queste
and using it as a source, nevertheless, stick to.the Perceval tradition
and add continuations to Chrétien's poem.

** It should be remembered, however, that, according to Brugger's
theory, these allusions refer not to the actual Perlesvaus, but to his
hypothetical later redaction. For the importance of these allusions in
his theory, cp., especially, op. cit. pp. 87f.

** Cp. Birch-Hirschfeld, Sage vom Gral, pp. 135ff. (1877), Nutt,
Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail, p. 64 (1888), Gruber,
Grundriss, Il, Abt. I, 726 (189), A. Jeanroy, Revue Critique, Oct.
10, 1904, J. L. Weston, Sir Perceval, II, 259, 274 (1909), W. Foerster,
Chrétion Wérterbuch, p. 186 (1914), F. Lot, Etude sur le Lancelot
en prose, p. 286, note 2 (1918), Bruce, MPh., XVI, 117, note 1,
(1918), and above. Heinzel, Uber die franzésischen Gvalromane,
p. 172 (1892), was inclined to accept Gerbert’s continuation of Chrétien's
Perceval as a source of the Perlesvaus, which implies, also, a late
dating. |

** Much the most elaborate studies of the date and sources of
the Perlesvaus are Nitze’s. Cp. his Johns Hopkins dissertation, The
Old French Grail Romance Perlesvaus (Baltimore, 1902) and his
articles, “The Glastonbury Passages in the Perlesvaus’, University of
North Carolina Studies in Philology, XV, 7ff. (1918) and “On the
Chronology of the Grail Romances”, cited two notes above. Nitze is,
doubtless, right in inferring from the Perlesvaus, pp. 261f. (Lancelot
tinds in a chapel at “li leus d’Avalon’ two tombs, one containing
Guinevere’s remains already, the other destined to contain Arthur's),
that its author knew of the fraud of the pretended discovery of the
tombs of Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury in 1191 — which
gives 1191 as the terminus a quo for the composition of the romance.
This, however, involves no great gain, for no one has ever proposed
to date any prose Arthurian romance earlier than that. The present

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 155

writer had already established the same date as the terminus a quo
for the dating of the Vulgate Mort Artu, whose author, likewise,
shows a knowledge of the new notion about Arthur's being buried at
Glastonbury. Cp. T. Lewis and J. D. Bruce, “The pretended ex-
humation of Arthur and Guinevere”, Revue Celttque, XXXII, 432,
note (1912), and Bruce, RR, IV, 454 (1913). There is, however,
absolutely nothing whatever to show in the one case any more than
in:the other that the particular author was writing shortly after the
above-mentioned fraud was perpetrated.

The terminus ad quem for the dating of the Perlesvaus is fixed
by an allusion to Perceval’s father (with the distinctive name given to
him in this romance) in the metrical romance, Chevalier as Deus
Espees, 11. 26041. The latter romance was composed certainly before
1250. Cp. Nitze, MPh., XVII, 166. Probably as early as 1230 is
the Vulgate Merlin-continuation, in which, Sommer II, 316, we have,
it seems, an allusion to the Perlesvaus, pp. 189f. (Kay's killing of
Arthur's son, Lohot). Cp. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXII",
192 and Bruce, RR, III, 183f. — Sebastian Evans, High History of
the Holy Grail, II, 290, points ont another allusion to the Perlesvaus
in the Old French romance Fulk Fitzwarin (late thirteenth century),
but this is later than the Chevalier as Deus Espees.

The following passage which is found at the end of the Brussels
MS. of the Perlesvaus (p. 348) and no other, and which has furnished
the basis for much of the discussion concerning the date of this ro-
mance, may help us to reduce the terminus ad quem to something
like 1235. It runs:

Por le seignor de Neele fist li seignor de Cambrein cest livre
escrire, qui onques mes ne fu troitiez que une seule foiz avec [error
for avant| cestui en roumanz; et cil qui avant cestui faust fez est si
anciens qu’a grant poine an peust l’an choissir la lestre. Et sache
bien misires Johan de Neele que l’an doit tenir ceste conte cheir, ne
Jan ne dojt mie dire a jent malentendable; quar bone chosse qui est
espendue outre mauvesses genz n’est onques en bien recordee par els.”

On this passage and previous criticism of it, cp., particularly,
Nitze, MPh., XVII, 605ff. (1920). According to Nitze’s interpretation,
the opening words refer to the Brussels MS., not to the original
composition of the romance, and the old book was really the particular
MS. of the Perlesvaus which the scribe of the Brussels MS. was
transcribing, although he is trying to convey the impression that he
is translating independently from the supposed Latin source. But that
any MS. of a Grail romance should have been so old as to be illegible
to a scribe of the first third (say) of the thirteenth century is most

Google

156 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
definitely that he translated his romance from a Latin original,®

unlikely. For my own part, I regard the passage rather as one of the
ordinary mystifications of the Middle Ages — in this case of a scribe —
through which a writer — or in this case, no doubt, a scribe —
endeavored to heighten the interest in his work by ascribing to it a
great antiquity, as Geoffrey of Monmouth, for instance, did in the case
of the pretended original of his Historia. The only thing genuine,
accordingly, in the passage, in my opinion, is the statement that a
lord of Cambrein presented the Brussels MS. to a lord of Nesle. The
lord of Cambrein (i. e. Cambrin, arrondissement de Béthune, in Northern
France — not Cambria, as some scholars have assamed), to be sure,
has not been identified. Nitze, pp. 608f., suggests that he was Hellin
de Wavrin, seneschal of Flanders, but this is merely conjectural.
Doubtless the Johan de Neele of this passage was Jean LI, who, as
Nitze has established, p. 607, was already lord of Nesle by 1202. In
this year he participated in the Fourth Crusade (against Constantinople).
In 1212 he pledged his service to Philip Augustus, in 1214 he prob-
ably took part in the battle of Bouvines, and in 1225 he definitely
parted with his Flemish possessions (Nitze, p. 610). Nitze thinks (611)
that the presentation of this copy of the Perlesvaus took place “be-
tween 1200 and 1212, which covers the period of Jean de Nesle’s
crusading activities and of his Flemish connections’, and hence that
the terminus ad quem for the composition of the romance must lie
‘between these two dates. The grounds on which he bases this opinion,
however, seem to me insufficient. Nothing is said about the crusade
in the passage and one nobleman might present a copy of a romance
to another in one period of the latter’s life as well as another, barring
early childhood and, possibly, extreme old age. As a matter of fact,
Jean II’s connection with Flemish affairs was weakened, no doubt,
after 1212, but it did not end until 1225. Besides, even after he
entered into closer relations with France, it is not reasonable to suppose
that he threw overboard all the friendships of his previous life. Then,
too, it is always possible that this lord of Cambrein sided likewise
with the French.

The date of Jean Il’s death would, of course, give a true fer-
minus ad quem, but that, apparently, is unknown. In view of the
fact that the Perlesvaus has been used, apparently, by the author of
the Vulgate Meriin-continuation, I should be inclinei to date it some-
where about 1225.

** Cp. p. 306: Josephus nos dist, par l'escriture qui le nos re-
corde de quoi cist estoires fu traite de latin en roumanz, que nus ne
doit estre en doutance que ces aventures avenissent a cel tans an la

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 167

but, as is obvious from the whole passage in which the statement
occurs, this is merely one of the common appeals of mediaeval
writers to fictitious Latin sources for the purpose of imparting
an air of authority to their inventions. The name which is given
to the author of this supposed Latin original — Josephus (and
variants) — is of course equally fictitious, and the only question
that can arise is as to the motive which prompted the real author
of our romance to choose this name for his imaginary authority.
The scholars who, owing to the influences which I have stated
above, assign an early date to the Perlesvaus and — what most
concerns us here — put its composition before that of the Vulgate
Estotre del Saint Graal, have adopted the theory that the writer

Grant Breteingne et an touz les autres roiaumes, et plus i avint an-
core assez que je ne recort; mes cestes furent les plus seures.

It is possible that this appeal to a Latin original may be imitated
from the Estoire, I, 195, where it is: said that Robert de Boron
translated that work “en franchois de Latin”.

** Baist (Prorektoratsrede, p. 15), we believe, is the only scholar
who still believes in this Latin source of the Perlesvaus. He iden-
tifies it with his hypothetical “liber Glastoniensis’, on which, as he
surmises, Robert de Boron drew, also, for his Joseph. But in regard to
this hypothetical work, see I, p. 263, note 54, above. Nitze, too, once
believed in the Latin source, MPh., I, 257 (1903), but has latterly given
up this belief. Cp. :bid., XVII, 165 (1919), 605, note 2 (1920). As to
the authorship and date of the two Latin romances, Historia Meriadoct
and De Ortu Waluuanii, to which Nitze refers, the dependence of
the former on the prose 7'ristan is beyond question. Not only does
it adopt from the 7'ristan the trick of drawing names for its characters
from early French history, but, like that romance, it gives a Cornish
Meroveus a subject, Sadoc (the latter name is taken from the genea-
logy of Christ, St. Matthew, 1), as is done nowhere else in literature.
It draws from the same source other names, also, besides those which
were connected with the early history of France. On these matters,
cp. pp. XXIff. of my edition (Géttingen, 1913) of these Latin romances.

Nitze, it should be remembered, still further, is not justified in
asserting MPh., XVII, 165, that “the demands of the case are amply
satisfied by referring the expression Li latins de coi cist estoires fust
traite an romanz to Glastonbury records about Arthur as preserved
in chronicle sources’. The author of our romance says quite definitely
(cp. previous note) that it was drawn from an “escritare’’.

Google

158 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

had in mind the well-known Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus.
But in our romance the author*’ of the supposed Latin original
is definitely said to have been “the first priest to sacrifice the
body of our Lord’’ — that is to celebrate the mass. Now, nowhere
is there recorded any legend to this effect concerning the historian,
Josephus.** Indeed, if we except the present passage of the Perles-
vaus and the Estoire del Saint Graal, nowhere is any such legend
recorded concerning any person whatever. But this passage in the
Perlesvaus, as we have observed, contains a mere allusion. On
the other hand, the long and elaborate episode of the Estoire in
which Christ initiates Josephe(s), son of Joseph of Arimathea,
into the mysteries of the mass, consecrating him the first bishop
of the church (p. 35),2° — the Grail being the centre of the sao-

*? Cp. p. 113. Joseph is here the variant of this supposed
author's name. The passage is as follows: “Cist hauz estoires nos
tesmoigne et recorde que Joseph qui nos en fet remembrance fu li
premiers prestres qui sacrefiast le cors Notre Seignor, et por itant doit
Yan croire les paroles qui de lui viennent.”

In view of this definite identification, there can be no force in the
objection that our author does not call him the son of Joseph of Arimathea.

*° At most, he was represented as having been converted to
Christianity. Cp. the Vengeance Nostre Seigneur (a poem written
shortly before or after 1200), cited by Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. «.
Intt. XXIX*, 82, note 33a. Josephus’s history is an actual source of
this poem. It would seem that among the Christians of Syria there
was, also, a legend that he was really the Jewish priest, Caiaphas,
(St. Matthew, XXVI, 3) and afterwards, being converted to Christia-
nity, resumed his original name of Josephus. Cp. Heinzel's Grail
treatise, p. 107.

Nitze supposes, MPh., XVII, 160, that the idea of citing Flavius
Josephus as his authority was derived by the author of the Perlesvaus
from a copy of Freculf’s chronicle in Glastonbury abbey, in which
work Josephus is mentioned.

** Cp. Sommer, I, 30ff. This contradicts, to be sure, an earlier
statement in the Estoire, p. 19, where St. Philip is called the first
bishop of Jerusalem, at the time that he baptizes Joseph of Arimathea.
The inconsistency, however, is unimportant.

According to Brugger, op. cit., p. 101, the author of the Estotre
is merely working up a long story out of the hint contained in the
single sentence of the Perlesvaus. Not only would the reverse be

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 159

ramental service — and Josephe now celebrates the first mass,
is of cardinal importance in that work, since Josephe here typifies
the church in the execution of its mission to carry the Christian
faith to the ends of the earth for the salvation of mankind, in
which mission its authority is mainly based on its possession of
the mysteries that are embodied in the mass. The whole scheme
of the book, then, requires that he should be the first priest to
be inducted into these mysteries and that he should be inducted
by Christ, himself.

The author of the Hstoire, moreover, had implied unmistak-
ably that the hermit who copied the Estoiwe from the book that
Christ handed him was a member of the Grail family; * hence
the author of the Perlesvaus does the same thing and accredits
his own work to a member of that family who not only enjoyed
the highest authority, but had already been exalted in the Estoire
for his learning*! — namely, Josephes. There is, accordingly,

more natural, but the fact that, as I have stated above, there is not
the remotest reason for believing that Flavius Josephus was ever
regarded as the first celebrant of the mass proves that this contention
is baseless. A writer who propounded such a startling novelty as this
about the holiest of Christian rites would surely have to justify it..
Obviously, he is alluding here to something well known through another
book (the Estotre), just as in the cases of his allusions to Perceval’s
abortive first visit to the Grail castle (Chrétien’s Perceval) and Lan-
eelot’s sin with Guinevere (Vulgate Queste).

Brugger, himself, confesses op. cit. pp. 82ff., that it would be
strange even for a mediaeval romancer to ascribe a history of the
events of King Arthur's reign to a man who lived some four hundred
years earlier, and he tries to get over this by a series of the most intricate
and improbable speculations, into which we need not follow him here.

*° Sommer, I, 3, 5. The author of the Vulgate Merlin-conti-
nuation II, 222, says that it was Nascien. This identification is his
own, but, like the author of the Perlesvaus, he had the passage in
the Estoire, of course, before him.

** His father extols his learning, p. 27. Moreover, he succeeds
in refuting the pagan clerks, I, 43ff., where Joseph had failed, and
all through the Estoire, he is the chief representative of the Christians,
when it comes to expounding doctrines and allegorical dreams. For
example, cp. I, 43ff., 221ff. 247ff. 250ff. 257ff. This justifies the

Google

160 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

no ground for doubting that the fictitious authority to whom our
author ascribes the composition of his pretended source and whose
name is usually spelt Josephus in the only MS. of his work that
has been printed, is really the Josephe(s) of the Hstoire — the
first Christian bishop, according to that romance. The Latinized
form of the name, if not due simply to manuscript corruption,**

epithet, “bon clerc’’, applied to him in the Perlesvaus, pp. 79, 107,
174, and in the variant version of a Lancelot episode, Sommer, V,
465. It is doubtless in imitation of the Estotre that we find Josephus
(Joseph) giving similar expositions of allegorical matters in the Perles-
Das, pp. 79— 81. |

*° This explanation may easily be the true one, for, although
everyone agrees that, according to the Perlesvaus, Perceval's father
was named Alein, the name does not occur with this (its true) spelling,
a single time in Potvin's text. We have, instead, Julien, Vilain and
(only once, p. 332) Elein. On the other hand, we do have Josephe(s)
twice (pp. 315, 348) and Joseph (which in the MSS. of the Hstotre
is not infrequently confounded with Josephe(s) thrice (pp. 79 —
twice — and 348). Everywhere else, the character is named Josephus,
save in a single passage (p. 197), where he is called Joseus — by
confusion, no doubt, with the knight (also of the Grail lineage) who,
to expiate the sin of. slaying his mother, abandoned knighthood for a
hermitage. Joseus’s name, in turn, is once (p. 152) written Josephus.

Josephes is, of course, merely the French form of Josephus.

In the Vulgate, Joseph, like other Hebrew names, is not declined,
but in the Middle Ages the name was also used with the Latin in-
flection. Joseph and Josephus then formed separate names, but they
were not always kept apart. Thus the Carolingian poet was generally
called Josephus Scottus, but again Joseph Scottus. Cp. Monumenta
Germaniae Historica: Poetarum Latinorum Medti Aevi Tomus I,
149f. 159 (Berlin 1881). Ibtd., Diplomatum Karolinorum Tomas I,
471f. (Hannover, 1906), we find Joseph and Josephus as variant
names of the same person in the same document. The document (a
forged one) purported to be of the eighth century, but the editors
(p. 470) assign it to the twelfth. Similarly, ibid., Scriptorum Rerum
Merovingicarum, VI, 550 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1913), Josephus,
Bishop of Freising, who died in 760, is called Joseph in the metrical
inscription on his tomb. A similar confusion, as we have seen, exists
in some MSS. of the Hstoire between the French equivalents of the
two names. Indeed, the author of the Lancelot episode, V, 465, says
outright that Joseph of Arimathea and his son bore the same name.

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 161

was probably adopted to conform with the author's statement re-
garding the language of his fictitious original. That Josephus
should record this story of the Grail in obedience to a message
conveyed by an angel (p. 1) is probably a reminiscence of the
visit of the angel to the author of the Estoire (I, 7) in the intro-
duction to that work, when the divine messenger took this author
(the hermit) up to the seventh heaven and revealed to him there
the mysteries of the Trinity, in order that he might be fitted
to relate the history of the Grail and its servants.

If the Josephus of the Perlesvaus, then, is derived from the
Josephes of the Estoire, the former work must be not only of
later date than the latter, but of later date than the Lancelot and
the Queste, and doubtless, also, the Mort Artu, for the Estowe
presupposes unquestionably the first two of these works, and ap-
parently, also, the last-named.**

There is, however, independent evidence to the same effect
— first of all, in the off-hand references to Lancelot’s sinful
relations with Guinevere (pp. 130, 182), as a thing that is well-
known to all the world.* But the conception of these relations
as sinful originated with the Queste, spread thence to the Lance-
lot,> and was incorporated in the beginning of the Mort Artu,

** Since sending this chapter to press, I have observed that in
the 1516 and 1523 prints of the Perlesvaus Josephe’s name appears
regularly as Josephus. This clinches my argument in the text
above.

** It would be absurd to maintain that the elaborate use of this
motif in the Queste was suggested by these brief allusions in the
Perlesvaus. Note similarly the author's habit, remarked on by Nitze,
diss. pp. 47f., of retelling in condensed form long episodes of his
sources.

*° That is to say, in the only extant form of this branch. It is
the opinion, however, of the present writer, as of most scholars, that
the Lancelot in its primitive form contained no allusions to the
Grail.

Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 141, has cited many important parallels in
the Perlesvaus and the Vulgate Queste, respectively, in which he
supposes that the former is the borrower. I agree with him in regard

Refperia, Ergdnsungsreihe : 9. 11

Google

162 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

when that romance came to be written. There is not a trace of
it in Chrétien’s Lancelot. Similarly, the conception of Claudas’s
defeat of Ban and of his wars with Arthur and Lancelot (pp.
277ff., 324), — also, alluded to as if they were matters with
which everybody was familiar — belongs to the Lancelot. The fact,
then, that we have here allusions that accord with the Queste and
the Lancelot of our extant MSS. renders it most probable that
it was in cyclic redactions of substantially the same character*
that the author of such allusions knew these branches.

to these parallels, but even more telling, I believe, are those about
the adultery of Lancelot and Guinevere cited above. Here, in the
Ferlesvaus we have mere off-hand allusions, in the Queste, a whole
romance in which this adultery constituted an essential motif. The
parallels cited by Birch-Hirschfeld are: 1. The white shield marked —
by a red cross, originally Joseph of Arimathea’s, Queste, VI, 21ff.,
Perlesvaus, pp. 25, 144. 2. The hero opens a tomb and finds the
corpse of an armed knight therein, Q. VI, 27, P. p. 179. 3. Pelles
is a character in both, in Q. as Galahad’s maternal grandfather, in P.
as Perceval’s uncle. 4. The mysterious ship in which the heroes
make voyages, called in the Queste Solomon's ship, Q. VI, 143ff.,
P. pp. 142ff., 146, 330, 347. 5. At the end of each romance the
hero passes in a ship with the Grail to his eternal abode, Q. VI,
192ff,, P., p. 347. 6. The réle of Lancelot in both as an unsuccessful
Grail-quester.

To these should be added the idea that the Grail questers par
eminence should be three in number, in Q. Galahad, Perceval, Bohort,
in P. Perceval, Gawain, Lancelot.

The connection between thesé passages in the two romances is
indisputable. In view of the unquestionable superiority of the Queste
to the Perlesvaus, in respect to literary quality, and in view of the
other evidence bearing on their relative dates, how can one doubt that
the latter is the borrower?

** The contamination of the primitive Lancelot with the con-
ceptions of the Queste must have begun very soon — probably,
at once — after the composition of the latter. Consequently, there is
no reason to doubt that the author of the Perlesvaus, in any event,
knew the Lance/ot as it was after this contamination had taken place,
since he was evidently familiar with the Queste. The Lancelot, to
be sure, may not have reached the final stage of its evolution, re-
presented by the extant MSS.

Google

The Relatton of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 163

That our author numbered among his sources Robert’s Joseph,
Chretien’s Perceval, and, at least, the first two continuations of
the latter (viz. Pseudo-Wauchier and Wauchier) is generally ag-
reed,3? but his indebtedness to the romances of the Vulgate cycle

*? Cp. Nitze’s dissertation, pp. 102ff. and review of earlier
opinions on the subject, pp. 20ff. — also, Bruce, MPh., XVII, 117 ff.
I agree with Nitze that it is impossible to determine whether Manessier
is, also, among these sources. The Craven Knight episode (Perlesvaus, —
pp. 52ff., 189, 301, and Manessier, ll. 42125ff. and 43719ff.) the
chief one involved, may well have been derived from a common lost
source. On the other hand, Nitze’s ground (p. 103) for rejection of
Birch-Hirschfeld’s views, Sage vom Gral, pp. 139f., as to Gerbert’s
being a source of the Perlesvaus is inadequate; for, as we have seen
above, the dating of the latter from external evidence between 1200
and 1212 is, by no means, established. The two romances have in
common the following episodes: 1. Perceval sees two priests before a
cross, one striking it with a stick, the other worshipping it. 2. Per-
ceval chases the beste glapissante, whose young within it are con-
stantly barking. 3. Perceval’s combat with the Dragon Knight. —
The Perlesvaus inverts the order of 1 and 2, but both romances
interpret them allegorically. The close connection of the two romances
in respect to these episodes is undeniable and I am inclined to agree
with Birch-Hirschfeld. Gerbert’s citation of “li livres” is not neces-
sarily decisive, as Nitze (p. 96) thinks, for the romancers habitually
speak of their own works as “li livres’, “li escris’. — For minor
sources of the Perlesvaus cp. Vengeance de Raguidel, ll. 1880ff.
(episode of the damsel of Gaut Destroit, source of the Proud Damsel
episode in Perlesvaus, pp. 55f.), pointed out by Nitze, dissertation,
p. 48, note — Enfances Gawain or variant of the same (story of
Gawain’s early life in Perlesvaus, pp. 252f.). The fragmentary En-
fances Gauvain was edited by Paul Meyer, Romania, XXXIX, 1ff.
(1910), and its relation to the Perlesvaus episoae discussed by Bruce,
Mistoria Meriadocit and De Ortu Waluuanit, pp. LIIIf. (Géttingen,
1913). Both the Vengeance and the Enfances belong, it seems, to
the beginning of the thirteenth century.

On the relations of Lancelot’s beheading game in the Perlesvaus,
pp. 103, 233, to the treatment of the same theme in Syr Gawayne
and the Grene Knight cp. Kittredge, Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, pp. 52ff. Still other notes on the minor sources will be
found in Nitze’s dissertation, pp. 104f., and for parallels see Lister's
diss., pp. 12ff. With the episode of Marin le Jalous (pp. 48ff.) cp.

11*

Google

164 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

seems to the present writer equally clear and of far greater im-
portance. Many features of the romance, besides those that have
been mentioned, betray its late origin** — especially, such features
as are marked by violent and illjudged change from the general
Arthurian tradition: e. g. the conception that the hero’s father
was still alive when he himself first went out into the world
(p. 20) — a conception which cuts at the very root of the whole
Perceval legend — the appropriation to the castle of Perceval’s
mother of the time-honored name of Arthur’s capital, Kamaalot
(pp. 19, et passtm), and the addition (pp. 24, 40 etc.) of a new
capital Pannenoisance (Pannennoiseuse) — most likely, Pen-
zance — to that monarch’e list of capitals, the three-fold (alle-
gorical) naming of the Grail castle (p. 249), the excessive number
of additional relics (Christ’s crown of thorns, portions of his blood
and garment, the implement which was used in taking him down
from the cross, Joseph’s shield, banner and mule, the sword used
in the decapitation of St. John) which the author introduces into
the Grail story and which, as a German scholar has remarked,
make his Grail chamber, as it were, a museum of curiosities.

that of the jealous lord of Beloe in the Mort Artu, Bruce's edition,
pp. 215 ff. — In his article, “The Schwanritter — Sceaf Myth in
Perceval le Gallois ou le Conte du Graal", Journal of English and
Germanic Philology, XIX, 190ff. (1920), P. S. Barto derives from
“Germanic mythology” Perlesvaus, pp. 142 ff. (Arthur from the window
of his castle at night sees a mysterious boat with an armed and
sleeping knight — really Perceval — on board drawing to land) and
333 ff. (Perceval observes the approach of the Red Cross ship which
is to bear him away on his last voyage). The first of these episodes,
however, is based on pseudo-Wauchier, ll. 20857ff. So, too, the
latter, in all probability, with an additional reminiscence of Arthur's
translation to Avalon. Like Sebastian Evans, his authority, Barto is
unaware of the existence of the early MSS. of the Perlesraus, barring
the insignificant Bern fragments.

In her recent article, “The Perlesvaus and the Vengeance
Raguidel’, Romania, XLVI, 349ff. (1921), Miss Weston argues
(wrongly, I believe) that these two works drew on a common source
for the Mysterious Ship and Proud Lady episodes, respectively.

°° Cp. the list of such features enumerated by Heinzel, pp. 175f.

*® Birch-Hirschfeld, Sage vom Gral, p. 143. In the same pas-

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 165

Altogether, as we have seen, the Perlesvaus is a mediocre patch-
work of motsfs drawn from 4 great variety of earlier Arthurian
sources, prose as well as verse, and it bears all the marks of a
period of decline. In the minds of English-speaking readers it
has gained an artificial importance, masmuch as it is the only
one of the Old French Arthurian romances in prose which has
been translated into English since the Middle Ages. Owing to
the translator’s skilful revival of the style of Malory and to the
fact that the version appeared in a popular series, the Perlesvaus,
in its English dress, has had a circulation much beyond its merits.

Even for especial students of the Arthurian romances, how-
ever, this romance would possess a peculiar interest, if it were true,
as has been contended,*! that it was written in the interests of
Glastonbury Abbey. As a matter of fact, the author was, doubtless,
acquainted with the notion which the monks of Glastonbury so
sedulously cultivated from the latter half of the twelfth cen-

sage he enumerates the relics named above. This is all a mere effort
to outbid previous Grail romancers.

** The same is true of German. Cp. the German translation of
the Perlesvaus by G. Gietmann: Ein Gralbuch (Freiburg, 1889).
The English version, referred to, is by Sebastian Evans and is entitled
The High History of the Holy Grail (2 vols. London, 1898). It
appeared in The Temple Series. The discussion of the Grail Legend
which Evans appended, II, 283ff., to his work is worthless. As in-
timated above, in his translation he employs an archaic style modelled
on Malory’s, and if one accepts the general method, it must be ac-
knowledged that the work is well done. In the opinion of the present
writer, however, this general method is of disputable value, for the
factitions archaic style leaves on thc reader’s mind an impression of
artificiality which is not produced by the French original or by Malory.
Especially, there is an oppressive solemnity about Evans’ version which
the natural style of the Perlesvaus, itself, is free from.

** Cp. especially Baist, Literaturblatt, 1892, col. 160, Pro-
rektoratsrede, p. 39 (1894), and Zs. f. rom. Ph., XIX, 326 ff. (1895)
and Nitze, “Glastonbury and the Holy Grail”, MPh., I, 247ff. (1903),
“The Glastonbury Passages in the Perlesvaus", University of North
Carolina Studies in Philology, XV, 7 ff. (1918) and “On the Chrono-
logy of the Grail Romances. I”, MPh., XVII, 151 ff. (1919), 605 ff.
(1920).

Google

166 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

tury? namely, that Glastonbury was identical with the Isle of
Avalon (really the Celtic Elysium) — and, also, with the other
baseless invention of these same monks in 1191 to the effect that
Arthur and his consort were buried in this abbey. The author of
the Vulgate Mort Artu had already shown familiarity with these
matters‘? and, from the time that the last-named fraud was per-
petrated, they were, no doubt, widely known among all that had
an especial interest in Arthurian traditions and, particularly, among
ecclesiastics, like the author of the Perlesvaus, who cherished such
interests. The description of “‘h leus d’Avalon” (pp. 261f.), how-
ever, which has been taken to be a description of St. Mary’s chapel
at Glastonbury “* — even if we grant that the identification is

*? Cp. above. *? Cp. I, 428 ff. |

*“ So Nitze in the second of his articles just named p. 12 —
on which I offered some critical comments in MPh., XVI, 117f., note,
and in the third, pp. 158f.

The place is described, pp. 261f. on the occasion of Lancelot’s
chance visit there. This passage and the others relating to Avalon in
the Perlesvaus, viz. pp. 222, 270, 348, are reproduced by Nitze in
his second and third articles. |

The chapel is said to be situated in a valley, ten “lyeues
galesches” long, with forests on each side. ‘“Desus la montaigne de
la valee”, on the right, he sees a rich chapel newly made. By the
side of this chapel and each joining it separately were “iii messons
mult richemant herbergiees” (i. e. fitted up as dwellings, I take it).
“Tl avoit mout biau cimetire a la chapele anviron, qui clos estoit a la
rende de la forest, et descendoit une fontaine, moult clere, de la hautece
de la forest, par devant la chapele, et coroit an la valee par grant
ravine; et chascune des messons avoit son vergier et li vergier son
clos. Lancelot oi vespres chanter a la chapele [et] il vit. i. santier
qui cele part tornoit; mes la monteingne estoit si roiste que il n’i pot
mie aler a cheval, ainz descendi; si le trest par la rene apres lui tant
qu'il vint pres de la chapele.” In the chapel there were three hermits
singing vespers. They come forth, greet Lancelot, and have his horse
stabled. Inside he finds two tombs. In one Guinevere is interred, in
the other the head of her son Lohot. pending the death of Arthar,
who is himself to be buried therein, according to the written directions
of Guinevere, kept in the chapel. She had had the place renovated
(“renoveler’) before her death.

Lancelot did not know before of the queen’s death. He refuses

Go ogle

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 167

food and spends the night in lamentation and prayer by the side of
her tomb and the next morning after attending services, departs for
Carduel.

In a previous passage (p. 222) it is said that Arthur had had
Lohot’s head borne “en l'ille de Valon, en une chapele qui estoit de
Nostre Dame ou il avoit un seint hermite preudome qui mout estoit
bien de Nostre Seignor’. Later (after Lancelot) Arthur, accompanied
by Gawain, also, went to l'ile, d’Avalon’” (p. 270) and grieved there
over his wife and his son, saying that he ought to love this holy
chapel more than all others in his land.

Obviously, the main objection to the view that we have here a
description of St. Mary’s chapel at Glastonbury by an eye-witness is
the fact that the chapel of the romance is situated on a very steep
mountain (or hill), but the actual St. Mary’s was not situated on high
ground at all. In Studies in Philology, XV, 12, Nitze was inclined
to think that the romancer had deliberately disregarded the actual
conditions and put the chapel on top of Glastonbury Tor (the steep
cone outside of the town, which rises some 500 feet above the sur-
rounding country), because St. Mary's was the leading church of.
Glastonbury and the Tor was “the most prominent place of the scene
he is describing’; in MPh., XVII, 156, note, he believes that the
words “desus de la montaigne’ need not imply more than that the
chapel was on the slopes of the Tor. But there is nothing to choose
between the interpretations, for, in either case, the statement of the
romancer would stand in flat contradiction to the historical truth, and
we cannot conceive what motive an ecclesiastic who had. lived at or
visited Glastonbury Abbey and who was “writing in its interests”
would have in deliberately perpetrating such a gross inaccuracy.
Moreover, even if we put St. Mary’s in an imaginary position on the
lower slopes of the Tor, where alone vergers are possible, what stream
descending from the mountain before the chapel did the author have
in mind? There is none mentioned in the descriptions of Glastonbury.

The first of the points just mentioned is sufficient, in my opinion,
to invalidate Nitze’s theory and to show that the description of St.
Mary's is anything but “precise” (MPh., XVII, 614, note 1). Indeed,
the whole passage is about as vague as the fanciful descriptions of the
romances usually are, and, in some points, suggests comparison with
previous descriptions in the Perlesvaus, itself, e. g. p. 6. The author
says at the end of his work (p. 348), “Li latins de coi cist estoires
fust traite an romanz fu pris an l’ille d’Avalon en une sainte messon
de religion qui siet au chief des mores (Hatton MS. mares), la ou li
rois Artus et la roine Guenievre gissent par le tesmoing de prodomes

Google

168 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

ee

religieus qui la dedanz sont qui tote l'estoire en ont vraie des le con-
mancemant tresqu’a la fin’, and he is, doubtless, availing himself of
the current idea that Arthur and his wife were buried at Glastonbury
(“ille d’Avalon”) to give authority to his romance by pretending that
he got it thence. The whole statement is, of course, a fiction, for
there is not the slightest reason to believe that the Perlesvaus ever
existed in Latin form. Especially noteworthy, however, is the fact
that, when he comes to describe Avalon in full (pp. 261f.), he appears
to have forgotten the actual Glastonbury altogether, for he mentions
no monks there, but only three hermits. The “clerc’’ (p. 263) prob-
ably assisted the hermits in the chapel. He does not mention, either,
the abbey; he merely speaks of three houses, which are obviously the
houses of the three hermits. But the historical records tell us nothing
of three houses being. attached to St. Mary’s. On the other hand, the
author of our romance was obsessed with the number, three (the
number of the Trinity), and introduces it and its multiples at every
turn. Thus there are three Grail questers, three names for the Grail
castle, thirty-three companions on the Bounteous Isle (p. 330) ete.
There is nothing about the chapel in which Arthur and Guinevere
are buried that is different from, the other hermits’ chapels, described
in the romance, except that its richness is strongly emphasized —
even more so than that of Pelles’ chapel (p. 62) — and that three
hermits are connected with it, instead of one, and, accordingly, that
three messons (hermits’ habitations) stand next to it, instead of one.
There is no intimation that there is any other building nearby. In
Chaus’s dream-adventure at the beginning of the Perlesvaus (p. 6),
like Lancelot, he penetrates a great forest, follows what he imagines
to be the tracks of the king’s horse as far as a glade (lande) in the
woods “si resgarde a destre et vit une chapele enmi la lende et voit
anviron un grant cimetiere ou il avoit mout de sarquenz, ce li estoit
avis”. The chapel is later (p. 12) said to be situated “el regort de
la forest’. Cp. the one described p. 169, “el regort d'une montaigne”’.
That the three hermits’ lodgings should be richly furnished may seem
strange, but so it is with the one which Gawain visits (p. 61) as well
as with that of King Pelles (p. 62), and this hermitage too had its
enclosed vergier. The hermits, moreover, always have attendants to
look after the steeds and armor of their visitors (pp. 59, 62, 102, 108,
126). It will be seen from this comparison that there is little left in
the picture that would suggest an identification of the chapel with
St. Mary’s at Glastonbury’s. That the author of the romance represents
his edifice as having been renovated may be well accounted for by the
fact that it was destined to receive the body of the sovereign and his

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 169

correct — is too inexact to have been written by a person who had
first-hand knowledge of tho spot. At most, one can only maintain
that the author derived some vague idea of the topography of the
abbey and its environs from hearsay or from books and filled
out the rest from his imagination. The legends, then, which we
find connected with St. Austin’s chapel at the beginning of the
Perlesvaus — the slaying of Chaus by invisible hands and the
vision of the Virgin Mary, who offers her son in the mass — and
which were, also, localized at Glastonbury, as we learn from John
of Glastonbury, the fifteenth century chronicler of the abbey,
were more probably drawn by the monks from the romance rather
than vice versa. Certainly, we know from this same chronicler
that they had localized materials from the Vulgate Estoire del
Saint Graal there and that he, himself, continued, in the same
spirit to draw freely on the Grail romances of the Vulgate cycle,‘

consort. It is implied in the Perlesvaus, moreover, that only Arthur
and Guinevere have tombs in this chapel, which there is no reason to
believe was true of St. Mary’s.

** Johannis, confratris & monachi Glastoniensis Chronica sive
Historia de Rebus Glastomiensibus, edited by Thomas Hearne, 2 vols.
Oxford, 1726. The legends in question will be found I, 77ff. Nitze
has reprinted the passage MPh., XVI, 616ff. (1920). Here it is not
St. Austin’s chapel, but the hermitage of St. Mary Magdalen of Beckery
(at Glastonbury) that Arthur visits. Moreover, he goes there not on
his wife’s advice, but because he is warned by an angel in a dream.
Gawain belittles the significance of the dream. At the time the king
was staying in Wirale nunnery at Glastonbury.

“* Thus, in the first volume, Joseph of Arimathea and his son,
Josephe (the latter invented by the author of the Hstotre), are
represented, p. 17, as being buried in the church at Glastonbury.
Mention is also made, p. 51, of Josephe’s being consecrated bishop in
“Sarath” — that is, Sarras. Cp. Sommer, I, 30ff. The author cites,
p. 52, directly the book “qui Sanctum Graal appellatur” (i. e. Sommer,
I, 211) as his authority as to how the converters of Britain made the
voyage thither, Josephe and his companions on Josephe’s shirt, the rest
in Solomon’s ship. He relates, also, pp. 52f., how Mordrain, warned
in a vision by Christ, took his army, which was led by Nascien (not
Vespasian, as Nitze, MPh., I, 249, note, interprets Vaciano) to Britain
and overcame the king of North Wales (Norgales). Cp. Sommer, I,

Google

170 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

and even on the Lancelot,‘" for still other materials in compiling
the history of the foundation, so that there is no reason why the
monks of Glastonbury, who nearly three centuries earlier had begun
exploiting the popularity of the Arthurian romances in the inter-
ests of their abbey, should not have included the Perlesvaus in their
depredations as well as the other Grail romances.“

230—241. On p. 53, the chronicler quotes some lines from “quidam
metricus” in regard to Josephe’s accompanying Joseph of Arimathea to
Britain, which shows that he (John of Glastonbury) was not the first
to localize these materials from the Grail romances at Glastonbury.
Pp. 56, 73 we find Arthur numbered among the descendants of Joseph
of Arimathea, whose genealogy is given in the Estoire (Summer, I,
286—290). This idea of Arthur’s descent from Joseph, however,
which is not found in the Estowe or any other Arthurian romance, is
more likely to have been an invention of the Glastonbury monks before
John of Glastonbury than of a sober historian (according to his lights),
like John. See, too, in this chronicle (p. 59) the list of Pierre's
descendants taken with much mutilation of names from Estoire, I, 280.

In a similar manner, the chronicler refers definitely to an incident
in the Vulgate Queste — “in inquisicione vasis quod ibi vocant Sanctum
Graal, refertur fere in principio”, etc. (p. 55) — namely, the one (Queste,
VI, 24 ff.) where the White Knight (Christ) gives the marvellous shield
to Galahad.

** The “liber de gestis incliti regis Arthuri” (p. 55), is the
Lancelot. The whole passage in John of Glastonbury runs: “Joseph
ab Armathia, nobilem decurionem cum filio suo, Josephes dicto & aliis
pluribus in majorem Britanniam quae nunc Anglia dicta est, venisse &
ibidem vitam finisse testatur liber de gestis incliti regis Arthuri in
inquisicione scilicet cujusdam illustris militis, dicti Lanceloth de Lac, facta
per socios rotundae tabulae, videlicet, ubi quidam Heremita exponit Wal-
wano misterium cujusdam fontis, saporem et colorem crebro mutatitis,
ubi et scribebatur quod miraculum illud non terminaretur, donec veniret
magnus leo qui & collum magnis vinculis haberet constrictum.”

The fountain which changed its color and taste and the hermit's
interpretation of it will be found in the unique Lancelot variant con-
tained in MS. Harley 6342 (fifteenth century), which Sommer has
printed as an appendix to Vol. 5 of his series. Cp., particularly,
pp. 455, 464ff. of that text.

** For the opposite interpretation of these matters cp. Nitze,
MPh., I, 248f., note, and XVII, 164f.

The first of the incidents of the St. Austin's chapel episode,

Google

The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle 171

named above, has approximately parallels elsewhere in mediaeval lite-
rature. Of very common occurrence is the second (miracle of St.
Gregory, as it is called). The two combined, however, occur only in
the Perlesvaus and in the Glastonbury chronicle, as far as I know.
The one text, then, doubtless, derived them from the other, or both
derived them from a common source. The fact that Gawain appears
in the Glastonbury version is an indication that its source was an
Arthurian tale of some sort. That character, it is true, does not
appear in the Perlesvaus in these incidents, but immediately after
them. The localization would account for the other changes. The
monks were eager to localize miracles of Our Lady at their abbey.
See the chapter in the chronicle, I, 45ff. It should be noted, moreover,
that between these two incidents, the Perlesvaus has a third: Arthur
comes to a hermit’s chapel on his way to St. Austin’s chapel and
overhears Our Lady's decision in the dispute of the angels and devils
over the hermit’s soul. If the author of the Perlesvaus were really
drawing from the Glastonbury legend, and not vice versa, his motive
for inserting this incident would not be apparent.

Sebastian Evans, High History of the Holy Greil, TI, and Miss
Weston, Romania, XLII, 420ff. (1914), believe that the author of
the Perlesvuus drew Chaus’s fatal dream-adventure at St. Austin’s
chapel (pp. 6ff.) from a local Shropshire legend. They regard the
passage about this adventure in a prophecy of Merlin’s in the Histoire
de Fulk-Fitzwarin (end of the thirteenth century) as proving that the
legend came from this locality. The Histoire identifies the St. Austin's
chapel of the Perlesvaus with one in a district which he calls
“Blaunche-Vile’’. Miss Weston indulges in some hazardous speculations,
but she really fails to connect the story with any Shropshire locality,
or, indeed, to find it actually localized anywhere. The Histotre's
localization, such as it is (it occurs in a prophecy of Merlin’s!) was,
no doubt, the individual fancy of its author.

It should be added that Nitze takes Glats, the name of Perceval's
paternal grandfather in the Berne MS. of Perlesvaus (p. 3) — he is
only named once in the romance — as certainly derived from Glast,
name of the eponymic founder of Glastonbury Abbey according to the
De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae. Is there any assurance,
however, that Glais is the correct form of the name? The Brussels
MS. here gives him the common Old French name, Gais (Latin Gatus).
Just a few lines before, this same Berne MS. has the name of Perce-
val’s mother as Iglats. It is possible that some confusion with this
name may have caused the scribe to change Gals to Glais. In any
event the names of the Perlesvaus in our only printed text (Potvin's)

Google

172 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

are incredibly corrupt. I have already referred to the fact that the
name of the hero's father Alein le Groos (which the author evidently
took from the prose Joseph, since the epithet does not appear in
Robert's. verse) is not spelt correctly a single time in this text,
although it occurs often there. Moreover, one, at least, of the names
of this Alein’s brothers in the same text (p. 3) is so corrupt as to be
unintelligible, viz. Melaarmaus. It tells against the correctness of
Nitze’s derivation, however, that the names of the sons of Gais (Glats)
have no connection with the names of Glast’s descendants as they are
given in the mediaeval chronicles of Glastonbury or relating thereto.
Apart from Alein (Julien, etc.), the name of Perceval’s father, the
names, Bruns (de) Brandalis, Bertholez, Brandalus (Brandelis) de
Gales, Elinaus de Gavalon, (Elinaus d’ Escavalon), Meralis (Mariales
of the prose Lancelot). Frommers (in the chansons de geste, Gaydon
and Gaufrei), Alibans — corrupted to Althaus in the Brussels MS.
(Alibon, Aliblon of the prose Lancelot and Vulgate Merlin con-
tinuation) — are drawn from various French romances. Of the rest
Galobrutes is plainly manufactured by combining Galo (from Gales
== Wales, but also a personal name in Arthurian romance) with Brutus,
name of the eponymus of Britain. Probably manufactured, also, from
Gales are the Galiaus (Galians) and Gorgalians of this list, which
differ only by the prefix Gor-. In any event, there is no reason to
doubt that these and the certainly corrupt Melaarmaus are names
drawn from French romance. On felles, name of Perceval’s maternal
uncle, cp. p- 15, above. The author of the Perlesvaus probably
discarded it as the name of the Fisher King, because to leave this
monarch with no definite name seemed more impressive. On _ the
shiftings of names in the Perlesvaus, see Bruce, MPh., XVI, 128.

Nitze, MPh., I, 255, on the suggestion of Prof. H. A. Todd, has
plausibly identified Pannenoisance (Pannenoiseuse) — the new capital
which is given to Arthur in the Perlesvaus (pp. 24, 140 et passim) —
with Penzance on the South Cornish coast. Jbid. XVII, 161, he
cites the introduction of this place (hitherto unknown in Arthurian
romance) as tending to confirm the theory of the connection of the
Perlesvaus with Glastonbury. There is no sign, however, that our
author really knew where Penzance (if we accept the identification)
was, for he says in one place (p. 24) that it is “sor la mer de Gales”
and in another (p. 140) that it is in “Gales” (i. e. Wales). These
statements are, of course, incorrect and cannot be taken as showing
any real knowledge concerning the town on the part of the author.

Google

PART V.

ANALYSES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

Google

Original from

Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Chapter I.
Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography.

The standard edition of the lays of Marie de France is that
of Karl Warnke: Die Lais der Marie de France (2te verbesserte
Auflage, Halle, 1900). This has completely superseded the earlier
edition by B. de Roquefort in his Poésies de Marie de France,
I (Paris, 1819). Comparative notes on the stories of which Marie’s
lays are variants were supplied- to Warnke’s edition pp. lxxvff.,
by Reinhold Kéhler, the great master in this branch of study.!

Roquefort’s edition included a Modern French prose trans-
lation of the lays. W. Hertz, Spielmannsbuch‘ (Stuttgart and
Berlin, 1912 contains German metrical paraphrases of Lanval,
Yonec, Deux Amans, Le Fraisne, Eliduc. Hertz’s notes, ibid.
are, also, very valuable. Eugene Mason’s French Mediaeval Ro-
mances (Everyman’s Library) includes a prose translation (Eng-
lish) of the lays. For another partial translation see Edith Rickert,
Marie de France: Seven of her Lays (New York, 1901).

For the literature of the narrative lays of the Middle Ages
in general (editions, etc.) cp. Warnke, pp. 11if. Among the gene-
ral discussions of the subject which he names, especially note-
worthy for sources is Axel Ahlstrém: Studter i den Fornfranska
Lais-Litteraturen (Upsala, 1892), and for the literary valuation
of Marie, in particular, J. Bedier, Revue des Deux Mondes, CVII,
853ff. (Oct. 15, 1891). Important, too, is Brugger’s discussion
of the lays, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XX, 120ff. (1898).

* Since the above was written, E. Hoepffner has reedited the
lays of Marie de France in the Bibliotheca Romanica, Nos. 274, 275,
277, 278 (Strasbourg, 1921). ‘The edition includes a glossary (two
pages) and variant readings, but no notes.

Google

176 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

We have seen what the story of the first of Marie’s twelve
lays, viz. Guigemar, is. The mottfs of the remainder may be
briefly indicated as follows: |

2. Equitan: A king of this name, practising adultery with
his seneschal’s wife, is scalded to death in a tub of hot water which
he and the adulteress had prepared for the seneschal. The last-
named, who has detected the two in the act of adultery, throws
his wife into the tub, and she; too, dies.

3. Le Fraisne: Based, in part, on the superstition (common
in primitive society) that twins are always children of different
fathers. A lady in Brittany makes malicious remarks to that
effect about a neighbor who has borne two sons. Shortly there-
_ after she herself gives birth to twin daughters. To conceal the
fact, she gives one to an attendant to kill. This woman, however,
deposits the child, with costly coverlet and handsome ring on its
arm, on an ash-tree (hence the heroine’s name) near a nunnery,
the abbess of which brings the child up as her niece. Le Fraisne
elopes with a lord and lives with him unmarried. The lord is
later about to marry her sister. Like the patient Griseldis, under
similar circumstances, Le Fraisne acts meekly as attendant, lays
the coverlet on the bridal bed. Mother of the bride recognizes it,
Le Fraisne’s identity is revealed, and she (not her sister) is married
to the lord.

4. Bisclavret: A knight under a spell becomes a wolf (were-
wolf) three days every week. His wife worms the secret out of
bim and her lover seizes his clothes in the forest, so that he cannot
become human again. King hunts in the forest and the wolf,
acting humanly, is permitted to attach himself to the king. At-
tacks his wife’s lover at court on sight, and later his wife. She
confesses, the knight's clothes are restored, he becomes human again,
and the adulteress and her paramour are banished.

5. Lanval: Lanval, a poor knight, neglected by King Arthur
in the distribution of gifts, is lying, dejected, in a meadow by a
brook. A fay summons him to her tent, grants him her love
and the power to have every wish fulfilled, provided he will keep
their relations concealed. Lanval is rich and happy, until Ar-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 177

thur’s queen falls in love with him. He rejects her proposals,
and, stung by her insinuations as to the causes of his coldness,
tells her that he has already as his lady-love the most beautiful
woman in the world, whose lowest maid surpasses the Queen in
beauty. The Queen (like Potiphar’s wife) accuses Lanval to the
king of soliciting her love, and repeats his depreciation of her
beauty. Lanval denies the first charge, but admits the truth of
the second. Arthur and the barons say that he must prove his
assertion or die. Lovely attendants of the fay arrive, but Lan-
val declares that none of them is his lady-love. At the climax
of the judges’ impatience the fay arrives. Lanval’s assertion has
proved true, and the king acquits him of blame. The fay, how-
ever, will not remain, and, Lanval having sprung upon her horse
behind her, they ride away to Avalon (the Celtic Elysium).

6. Les Dous Amanz (The Two Lovers): A father will give
his daughter only to the man who can carry her to the top of
a certain hill (in Normandy) without stopping. On the girl’s
advice, her lover gets from her aunt at Salerno a magic drink
which will give him the necessary strength. He fails to use it,
however, and dies of exhaustion, as he reaches the top. The girl,
too, will not use it, and dies with her lover. The hill is named
“The Hill of the Two Lovers.”

7. Yonec: A beautiful young woman of high birth is kept
in a tower by a jealous husband. A fairy prince, in the form
of a falcon, flies into her room. Resuming his human form, he
becomes her lover. She regains now her beauty and happiness.
The husband, suspicious of the change, has her watched. Having
discovered the truth, he has spear-heads fixed in the window, which
give a fatal wound to the falcon on its next visit. The transformed
prince tells the lady that his wound is mortal, but that the son
whom she will bear to him is destined to avenge his death. He
then flies away, but she springs through the window, follows him
by the traces of his blood into the hollow of a mountain, where
his fairy kingdom is situated, has a final interview with her lover,
who gives her a magic ring and sword as well as directions as to
how the death of her husband is to be compassed by their son

Helperia, Ergdnzungsreihe: 9. 12

Google

178 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

(yet to be born). These directions are in the course of time carried
out, and Yonec (the son) avenges his father.

8. Laustic: A young woman is accustomed to lean out of her
window at night to talk with her lover in the adjoining house.
Her jealous husband asks why she js so fond of going to this
window at night. She replies, “to hear the nightingale.’’ The
husband has the nightingale caught, kills it and throws the bleed-
ing bird on her breast. She no longer has an excuse for stolen
conversations with her lover — sends the bird, however, to her
lover, who has it set in a case, and carries it about on his person
in memory of his lady-love.

9. Milwm: In a secret intrigue with a lady of his land (South
Wales) Milun begets a son, who is brought up in Northumberland
by the lady’s sister. The lady is compelled to marry another
man against her will, but by means of letters concealed under a
swan’s wing, and in other ways, maintains communication for years
with her lover. The son grows up, knowing the story of his pa-
rents, but has not met his father. The two have an encounter
in a tournament. The father is unhorsed, but recognizes a ring
on his son’s hand. There is a recognition-scene and the son takes
his father to his mother, whose husband has died in the meanwhile.
The parents are marricd.

10. Chattivel: Four knights try to win a lady's favor by
valiant deeds. Three are killed; the fourth is maimed. The lady
grieves that she should have been the cause of these misfortunes
and has a lay composed about it. It is called Li Chastivel after
the surviving knight, who thinks that he is the unluckiest of the
four.

11. Chievrefeuil (Honeysuckle): Tristan communicates with
Iseult of Cornwall by messages inscribed on a stick of hazel, which
he lays in the road where she is to pass. In this way they ar-
range a meeting and Tristan learns that King Marc regrets having
banished him. In memory of this message Tristan composed a lay
named Chievrefeuil.

12. Eliduc: Eliduc of Brittany loves his wife and vows f1-
delity to her, when his enemies cause him to be banished from

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 179

the land. In Great Britain, where he greatly distinguishes him-
self, he meets a king’s daughter, Guilliadun, who falls in love
with him. His lord in Brittany needs him and regrets his banish-
ment — summons him to return. When he leaves, Guilliadun
is in despair. He promises, however, to return and take her with
him to his native land. He does so, after peace in Brittany has
- been restored, but on the voyage back to the continent a storm
arises and a sailor says that the cause is his lord’s conduct with
Guilliadun. Eliaduc throws the sailor into the sea, but Guilliadun
falls into a trance. Her lover takes her to a church in Brittany
and is going to bury her there. Eliduc’s behavior on his previous
return to Brittany had aroused his wife's suspicions, which were
still further confirmed by his present behavior. She accordingly
watches him and understands what is the matter, when she dis-
covers Guilliadun in the chapel. She is the means, however, of
bringing the apparently dead girl back to life, for she has ob-
served a weasel resuscitate its dead mate by putting a leaf of a
certain herb in the latter’s mouth. She has a leaf of this same
plant put into the mouth of Guilliadun, who is hkewise restored
to life. Still further, the self-sacrificing wife renounces her claim
to Eliduc, founds a convent, and becomes a nun. Eliduc lives
happily for years with Guilliadun, but they, too, ultimately adopt
the monastic life, and so end their days.

To the discussions of the individual lays which are recorded
in Warnke’s second edition (1900) should be added the following
which have appeared since the publication of that edition:

4. Bisclavret. Cp. G. L. Kittredge’s edition of Arthur and
Gorlagon: Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Litera-
ture, VIII (Boston, 1903). Arthur and Gorlagon, preserved only
in the MS. of the Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B. 149 (end of the
fourteenth century), is a Welsh folk-tale (a sort of mabinogi) in
Latin prose. It is, in part, a werewolf tale, closely akin to Bis-
clavret and the anonymous lay of Melion. Owing to its kinship
with certain Irish tales, Kittredge concludes (p. 261) that the
story of Bisclavret reached Brittany from Ireland.

5. Lanval. C. W. Prettyman, MLN, XXI, 205ff. (1905),

12*

Google

180 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

shows that Lanval is a source of the Middle High German poem
(of about 1310), Peter von Staufenberg, last edited by Edward
Schréder (Berlin, 1894). For Celtic parallels cp. T. P. Cross, ‘‘The
Celtic Fée in Launfal,’’ Kittredge Anniversary Papers, pp. 377 ff.
(Boston and London, 19138) and ‘“‘The Celtic Elements in the Lays
of Lanval and Graelent,” MPh., XII, 585ff. (1915). The latter
is the fullest discussion of Lanval and cognate tales and contains
in the notes very abundant references to the literature of the sub-
ject. Cp., also, Anmerkungen zu den Kinder- und Hauemarchen
der Briider Grimm, neu bearbeitet von J. Bolie und G. Polivka,
II, 327ff. (Leipzig, 1915).

6. Les Dous Amanz. This has been reedited by A. L. Dur-
dan: Le Lat des Deuz-Amants, Légende Neustrienne de Marie
de France (Macon, 1907), but the edition has no value. Durdan
appears ignorant of the existence of Warnke’s standard edition.
O. M. Johnston’s “Sources of the Lay’of the Two Lovers,” MLN.,
XXI, 34ff. (1906) is the most valuable study of the subject.
As Johnston says, the lay combines two folk-tale motsfs, for each
of which he adduces parallels: 1. A king, on losing his wife,
wishes to marry his own daughter. 2. A girl can be won only
by performing some difficult task, set by her father.

7 Yonec. Edith Rickert, Marie de France; Seven of her
Lays (London, 1901), 184, cites parallels from the Wooing of
Etatn and other Irish sagas. P. Toldo, Romanische Forschungen,
XVI, 609ff. (1904) cites still others from the Orient. Cp., too,
O. M. Johnston: “Sources of the Lay of Yonec,’ PMLA. XX,
322ff. (1905) and “The Story of the Blue Bird and the Lay of
Yonec,” Studj Medievals, II, 1ff. (1905) and Bolte and Polivka,
II, 261ff. (1915). According to Johnston, Yonec combines two
folk tale motifs: 1. The Jealous Stepmother (perhaps, of Celtic
origin). 2. Imclusa (perhaps, of Oriental origin): A jealous hus-
band shuts up his young wife, but in the end a lover carries her off.
Through the first of these elements it is related to the story of
L’ Oiseau Bleu in the collection (seventeenth century) of fairy tales
by the Comtesse d’Aulmoy. Cp., still further, T. P. Cross, ‘“‘The
Celtic Origin of the Lay of Yonec,” Revue Celtique, XXXI,

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 181

413ff. (1910). Cross reviews preceding discussions and tries to
establish by Irish parallels (mainly), Celtic derivation. Features
of the tale can be paralleled in classical and oriental tradition, but
Cross thinks (p. 471) that the cumulative evidence favors the
theory of Celtic origin, although the revenge motsf, with its corol-
lary of the gift of sword and ring, is wanting in the Celtic Stories.
Bird-lovers are found in folk-tales everywhere, but when one con-
siders the Celtic names in Yonec, it seems to me better to accept
this element of the lay as of Celtic (Breton) origin.* On the
other hand, the Inclusa element, as Cross (p. 455) seems willing
to concede, is, doubtless, ultimately of Oriental origin. Taking
Yonec as a whole, one must confess, nevertheless, that much the
closest parallel that has ever been adduced is not Celtic but Russian
(doubtless Oriental in the last analysis), viz. Le faucon resplendts-
sant, which Toldo, op. cit., pp. 629f., cites from Leon Sichler:
Contes Russes, 24ff. (Paris, 1881). We have here among other
things, what is wanting in Cross’s Celtic parallels of bird-lover
tales, namely, the heroine’s search for the wounded bird-prince
until she finds him in his fairy realm. To be sure, the Russian
tale ends happily.’

9. Milun. M.A. Potter, Schrab and Rustem (London, 1902)
is the best study of the theme of the combat between father and
son in literature and popular tradition.

11. Chievrefeuil. Cp. Lucien Foulet, in his “Marie de France

* In the Annales de Bretagne, XI, 479 (1895-6), J. Loth,
reviewing F. Lot's “Etudes sur la provenance du cycle arthurien”,
Romania, XXIV—XXV, expresses the opinion that Yonec is of Welsh
origin. He observes, however, that the mention of St. Aaron in it
means nothing, for Aaron figures, also, among Breton saints. He
founded a monastery at St. Malo.

* Since the above was written, M. B. Ogle’s article, “Some
Theories of Irish Literary Influence and the Lay of Yonec’, RR, X,
123 ff. (1919), has appeared. Ogle points out classical and oriental
parallels to motifs in Yonec and denies that the lay is derived from
Celtic sources. The nomenclature, however, is Breton, and, whatever
the ultimate sources of the tale may be, it seems to me that the
immediate source was, most likely, Breton.

Google

182 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

et la legende de Tristan,” Zs. f. roman. Ph., XXVIII, 278 ff.
(1908). He concludes (p. 283) that the incident in this lay was
taken by Marie from the (lost) primitive Tristan poem. In MLN,
XXIII, 205ff. (1908) he shows as stated above, that Marie’s
apparent appeal (1. 5) to an oral, as well as a written, authority:
for her tale is “‘a meaningless mannerism.”’ The numerous paral-
lels which he cites from her other writings puts this beyond doubt.
-— In the article cited I, 66, note 61 above, Ezio Levi, pp. 137ff.,
argues unconvincingly that this was one of the primitive lazs about
Tristan — anterior to the romances on that hero. He argues,
pp. 150ff., the same thing with reference even to Guirun and
J gnaure.

12. Eliduc. René Basset: “La legende du mari aux deux
femmes,” Revue des Traditions Populaires, XVI, 614ff. (1901),
cites a parallel from a tale of the Prussian Altmark and two
parallels from the Arabian Nights. Cp., too, A. Bayot: Le Roman
de Gillon de Trazegnies (Louvain and Paris, 1903). This ro-
mance deals, also, with the theme of the ‘“‘man with two wives.”
Bayot believes that it is based on a lost French poem (which he
dates about 1365) and traces the theme to India. — J. E. Matzke
has discussed Eliduc, also, in his article ‘“The Souree and Com-
position of Ille et Galeron,”’ MPh. IV, 471ff. (1907). He dis-
putes the position, which Foerster had taken in his edition (Halle,
1891) of this poem, that it is based on Eliduc — argues that the
lay and the romance are derived independently from a common
tradition. — In his Géttingen dissertation (1910), Der Einfluss
des Gautier d' Arras auf die altfranzésische Kunstepik, insbesondere
auf den Abenteuerroman, pp. 11ff., W. M. Stevenson accepts
Foerster’s view that [lle et Galeron is wholly dependent on Hliduc,
but he offers no new argument.

So much for the undisputed lais of Marie de France. As we
have seen above, the term became conventional and was applied
even to narrative poems that had nothing to do with the matseére
de Bretagne — as Warnke, p. xxxvii, says, simply because it
carried with it a greater distinction than the terms, fableau and dit.
In MS. 1104, Nouvelles Acquisitions, Fonds Francais (Biblio-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 183

theque Nationale), which dates from the end of the thirteenth
century, we have a considerable number of such pieces mixed with
genuine lais bretons (by Marie de France and others) and all
headed: lays de Bretaigne. See the list of its contents given by
G. Paris, Romania, VIII, 31ff. (1879). Paris had already edited
two of the spurious lays in this collection, ibid., vol. VII —
Epervier (pp. 1ff.), Amours (pp. 407ff.). Warnke, pp. xxxviif.,
has enumerated the lays of this character. I would add to his
list Ignaure, Cor, Havelock, Trot, Naberet (for all of which see

Foulet, Zs. f. rom. Ph., X XIX, 54f., note 1) — also, L'Espine,
_ which has no real connection with Celtic matters (Cp. Brugger,
Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XX, 1389, and Foulet, Zs. f. rom. Ph.,
XXIX, 36). What has been said of L’EHspine is true, too, of the
Lecheor. This so-called lat is merely a cynical joke on the true
source of inspiration in chivalry — too gross for repetition. I can-
not take seriously, either, its introduction — as G. Paris and
Warnke have done — which tells us that on St. Pantelion’s day,
‘‘as the Bretons relate,’ people used to assemble in honor of the
saint and the men would recount adventures of love and knighthood,
whilst the ladies listened to them. The adventure which pleased
them most was turned into a lay by the company. This, how-
ever, is evidently a piquant invention, and nothing more, to intro-
duce with mock seriousness the vulgar joke that follows. There
is no reason to imagine that any one in France or elsewhere ever
imagined that Breton lays really came into existence in this
manner.

The mysterious title, Gumbelauc, given to the lay in the Old
Norse version of the lays (Strengleikar, p. 68, edited by Keyser
and Unger, Christiania, 1850), has been interpreted as Welsh and
as affording proof of the Celtic origin of the lay. Cp. on the
subject E. Philipot and J. Loth, Revue Celtique, XXVIII,
327ff. (1907). This position, however, is disputed by L. Foulet,
“Les Strengleikar et le lai du Lecheor,” ‘Revue des Langues
Romanes, LI, 97ff. (1908).

Apart from the recognized compositions of Marie de France,

Google

184 Evolution of Arthurian Romence

following are the lays which appear to have some genuine connection
direct or indirect, with the matsére de Bretagne: *

1. Tyolet. Combines the motif of Perceval’s childhood (hero
is brought up in forest by his widowed mother in complete ig-
norance of arms, but meets knights in the forest and goes to
Arthur’s court) with that of the false claimant in Thomas's Tristan
— that is to say, the hero being wounded, an impostor gets pos-
session of some symbol of his achievement — here the white foot
of a stag — and claims, himself, the credit for this achievement
until he is exposed. The author is obviously merely drawing on
Chrétien and Thomas. Foulet, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIX, 48ff.,
notes, too, verbal echoes of Marie's lays.

2. Gutngamor: The hero has rejected a queen’s love and she
tries to dispose of him by provoking him to an impossible enter-
prise — the killing of a certain wild boar in the neighboring forest.
He crosses a perilous river (boundary of fairyland), has an ad-
venture with a fay, lives in her castle in such joy that he thought
the time three days, though it was really three hundred years.
She permits him to return for a visit to his friends, but warns him
against eating anything, whilst in his own country. Being hungry,
however, he eats some wild apples, whereupon he shrivels up into
an excessively old man. The fay, however, sends her messengers,
who take him back to fairy-land, and he is heard of no more. —
Guingamor may very well be by Marie. Foulet, op. cit. p. 303,
assumes this. Cp. too, G. Paris, Manuel, p. 98, and R. Zenker,
Litteraturblatt f. germ. u. rom. Ph., XIII, 149ff. For a study
of this beautiful story, which is undoubtedly of Celtic origin, see
W. H. Schofield, “‘The Lay of Guingamor,” Harvard Studies and
Notes in Philology and Literature, V, 221ff. (Boston, 1896). Cp.,
also, T. P. Cross, MPh., XII, 590ff. (1915). The hero’s name
is really identical with that of the hero of Marie’s first lay —
Guigemar. Cp. on the subject, H. Zimmer, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u.
Tatt. XIID, 7ff. (1891). For further instructive notes on this
lay cp. W. Hertz, Sptelmannsbuch’, pp. 382ff. F. Lot compares

* G. Paris, Manuel, p. 98 ascribed nos. 2 and 4 to Marie.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 185

(Romania, XXV, 590f.)- the White Boar of this lay with the
Twrch Trwyth of Kulhwch and Olwen and the sow, Henwen (Old
White), of a Weleh triad (Loth, Mabinogion’, IT, 271).

3. Doon. An heiress who lives at Danebore (Edinburgh)
fixes as the price of her hand that the successful suitor in one day
should ride from Southampton to Edinburgh. Several accomplish
this feat (!), but they are so tired at the end of the journey that
they fall into a profound sleep and the girl kills them before they
awaken. Doon sits up the whole night after his arrival and wins
the heiress. A second part of the poem is based on the same
motif as Marie’s Milum (combat of father and son).

4. Tydorel. A queen of Brittany has no child by her husband—
has one, Tydorel, however, by a supernatural lover (water-sprite).
Tydorel becomes a powerful king, but betrays his supernatural
origin by never sleeping. People have to sit up with him all night
to entertain him with etories. A young man, unwillingly im-
pressed for this duty and instructed to say what he does by his
mother, tells the king that a person who cannot sleep is not human.
The king takes the taunt to heart, goes to his mother, who confesses
the circumstances of his paternity, whereupon he mounts his steed,
proceeds to his father’s lake, plunges in, and is heard of no more.

For a study of this theme (hero who is the son of a woman
and a supernatural lover) cp. Florence L. Ravenel, “The Lay of
Tydorel and Robert le Diable,” PMLA, XX, 152ff. (1905). See,
too, W. Hertz, Spielmannsbuch’, pp. 389ff.

5. Melion. A werewolf story closely akin to Bisclavret. For
a study of this story in connection with Bisclavret, etc., cp. Kitt-
redge, Arthur and Gorlagon, pp. 167ff. He derives Bisclavret
and Melion from a common source. It seems to me, however, more
likely that the latter is based on the former. This is the conclusion.
of L. Foulet’s examination of the subject, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIX,
40ff. (1905). He points out Marie’s influence on the phraseology
of the anonymous lay — also, Wace’s.

6. Graelent. A variant of the Lanval story with the incidental
motif added, of the knight who captured a girl (fay) by seizing
her clothes, whilst she is bathing in a pool. For a study of this and

Google

186 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

cognate stories cp. W. H. Schofield, “The Lays of Graelent and
Lanval and the story of Wayland, “PMLA, XV, 121ff. (1900)
— also, T. P. Cross, ‘‘The Celtic Elements in the Lays of Lanval
and Graelent,” MPh., XII, 585ff. (1915). Schofield and Cross
regard Lanval and Gréalent as coming from a common source.
Moreover, Schofield derives the clothes-stealing incident from the
Norse saga of Wieland (who seizes the swan-garments of a swan-
maiden under the same circumstances). This, however, is very
doubtful. Cp. M. B. Ogle, American Journal of Philology, and
Cross, loc. cit., p. 621, note 4. Foulet argues plausibly, Zs. f. rom.
Ph., XXIX, 19ff. that Graelent is based on Lanval. On the name,
Graelent, cp. H. Zimmer, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XIID, 1 ff.
(1891).

7. Désiré. An unskilful and still further rationalized version
of the Lanval theme, and as Foulet, op. ctt., pp. 37 f., says, doubt-
less, based on Marie’s Lanval. For supposed points of contact bet-
ween this lay and Chretien’s Yvasm, cp. A. Ahlstrom, Mélanges-
Wahlund, pp. 296f. (Macon, 1896).

The first four of these anonymous lays were edited by G.
Paris, Romania, VIII, 29ff. (1879), no. 5 by W. Horak, Zs. f.
rom. Ph., VI, 94ff. (1882), no. 6 by Roquefort, Poéstes de Marie
de France, I, 486ff. (Paris, 1819), Barbazan and Méon, Fabliauz
et Contes, IV, 57ff. (Paris, 1808), in the 1829 (Paris) edition of
Le Grand D’Aussy’s Fabliaur ou Contes, I, App., 16ff., and by
G. Gullberg, Deux lais du XIIIe siécle, 1ff. (Kalmar, Sweden,
(1876), no. 7 by F. Michel, Lais inédits des XIIe et XIITe siécles,
pp. 5ff. (Paris and London, 1826).

On the language of nos. 1, 2, and 4 cp. K. Warnke, Marte de
France und die anonymen Lais, Programme no. 699 (1892) of
the Gymnasium Casimirianum in Coburg. It is the same as Marie’s
own language, according to Warmke, p. 7. No. 5 is Picard, no. 6
originally Norman. Cp. Warnke, zbid. pp. 18ff.

In addition to the French lays already enumerated one should
add the lay on the classical harper, Orpheus, which is preserved
only in its English form, Sir Orfeo; but the English poem, edited
by O. Zielke (Breslau, 1880), is indisputably based on a lost French

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 187

original. For a study of this and other supposed Breton lays in
English, cp. Kittredge, American Journal of Philolgy, VII, 176 ff.
(1886). Foulet, however, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXX, 704 (1906)
seems to show that the Celtic coloring of St Orfeo is due to imi-
tation of Marie. See, also, his article, ‘““The Prologue of Str
Orfeo,” MLN, XXI, 46ff. (1906). — For notes on Sir Orfeo, cp.,
too, W. Hertz, Spielmannbuch', pp. 357ff. — Gabrielle Guillaume,
“The Prologues of ‘Lay le Freine’ and ‘Sir Orfeo’,’ MLN,
XXXVI, 458ff. (1921), disputes Foulet’s conclusions.

1. Analyses and Bibliography of the French Arthurian
Romances in Verse.

The following romances were all composed in octosyllabic coup-
lets. A full list of the editions is given in the case of each romance.
Nothing is said of the manuscripts, except where the work sur-
vives in only a single copy. The most ample information in re-
gard to the sources, date, etc. of any romance is to be found, of
course, nearly always in the introductions to the editions of the
work. It is not necessary, therefore, to repeat this statement under
each heading in the following list -—- which, I may add, is com-
plete for the metrical romances, now extant. |

In the brief bibliographies that precede the analyses of the
various romances below, we have cited all publications of value with
regard to the poems (excepting those that relate merely to tex-
tual criticism), but have not otherwise tried to make the citations
exhaustive. The critical literature thus cited, supplemented by
the introductions of the editions of the individual works, will
enable any one that so desires to follow up the study of any parti-
cular romance. The comment with which we have concluded each
article in the list consists for the most part of informal notes on
the general literary value of the respective romances for the gui-
dance of students who have not as yet read these works. References
to “G. Paris, HLF, XXX,” are to that scholar’s standard treatise,
‘“Romans en vers du cycle de la Table Ronde,’ Histotre Littératre
de la France, ouvrage commence par des religieux Benedictins de

Google

188 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

la congregation de Saint-Maur et continué par des membres de
U Institut,’ Tome XXX, pp. 1—270 (Paris, 1888). It is hardly
necessary for me to say that this treatise is still fundamental in
the study of the verse-romances. References to ‘‘Gréber’’ are to
Gréber’s Grundriss der romanischen Philologie (Strassburg,
1888—1901).

In arranging this list of the metrical romances I have adopted
the chronological order, as far as that is ascertainable. In many
cases, of course, even the relative dates of the works concerned are
doubtful. The reader, however, is referred to the editions of the
individual romances for the discussion of such questions.

I have included in my list even the metrical romances that
were composed after the year 1300, but, since these works lie
beyond the limits which I have set for this treatise, I have re-
frained from any save the most general indications as to their
contents.

It is, perhaps, advisable to state, in conclusion, that the fol-
lowing analyges, except in the case of the two or three romances
that have not yet been printed, are all based directly on the original
texts.

1. Erec et Enide. Edited by Immanuel Bekker, Zs. f. d. A.,
X, 873ff. (1856) and by W. Foerster, in octavo, Halle, 1890, in
duodecimo, ibid., 1896 and 1909. 6958 lines — For author (Chre-
tien de Troyes), dialect, bibliography, and date cp. I, 108ff., above.

Whilst holding court at Caradigan at Easteride, Arthur pro-
claims the chase of the white hart, according to custom, noth-
withstanding Gawain’s objection that to do so will produce envy
and discord among the courtiers, for whoever should kill the beast
would have to select the girl at court whom he considered the pret-
tiest and kiss her. Guinevere joins in the chase, accompanied by
one female attendant and by Erec. The rest of the party had
gone on some distance ahead, when the queen sights a knight, a girl,
and a dwarf, and sends her damsel to inquire who the knight
and the girl are. The dwarf, however, rudely bars the way, and,
when the damsel insists on executing her commission, he strikes
her with his whip. The queen now despatches Erec to order the

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 189

knight and girl to come to her, but he receives the same treat-
ment as the damsel. Nevertheless, he feels unable to resent the
blow, for he notices that the knight is armed, whilst he himeelf
is unarmed. He resolves, however, to avenge the insult, and leav-
ing the queen keeps the trio in sight and follows them to a castle
in the neighborhood of which the greatest activity prevails. — In
the meanwhile the hart had been killed, but Guinevere persuades
Arthur to postpone the function of the kiss three days, so that
Erec may be present. Having observed where the knight had
turned in, Erec finds lodgings for the night with a vavassor, who
had once been rich, but now was poor — so much so, indeed, that
his beautiful daughter had to act as ostler to Erec’s horse. Erec
learns from the vavassor that the bustle which he had observed
was due to a contest over a sparrow-hawk, as the prize of beauty,
which was to take place the next day. The knight whom Erec
had followed had, the two preceding years, borne off the prize
unchallenged and awarded it to his lady. Erec next obtains equip-
ment for the contest from his host and, also, permission to fight
for the latter’s daughter in this contest. He is the son of King
Lac and wishes to marry this daughter, should he carry off the
prize. Erec, of course, wins the prize for his lady — vanquishes
the knight with the insolent dwarf, but spares his foe’s life on
the condition that he, the girl, and the dwarf shall present them-
selves to Guinevere as her captives. The knight is named Yder,
son of Nut. On his arrival at court, as we learn later on, Yder is
pardoned by the king and enrolled in the royal retinue. Erec is
now made much of by everybody, including his host’s brother-
in-law, the count of the district. Nevertheless he will not stay even
with this nobleman, but takes the vavassor’s daughter off to Ar-
thur’s court to marry her. Moreover, he will not allow her to
accept rich attire, in the place of her poor garments, save from
Guinevere. When she has been clad in fine rainment (presented
to her by the queen), Arthur makes her sit by himself and his
consort and chooses her for the kiss which was required by the
custom of the chase of the white hart. Her preeminence in beauty,
however, 1s 80 indisputable, that no disoord results from this choice.

Google

190 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Erec now sends money, clothing, etc. to his future father-in-law,
and after this the wedding is celebrated with due splendor at
Arthur’s court. In the course of the marriage service the bride
for the first time discloses her name as “Enid’’. A month later
Erec attends a great tournament at Tenebroc (Edinburgh) and
wins the highest honors of the occasion. |

Our hero now returns to his father’s court, where he and his
bride meet with the most cordial welcome. In the course of time,
however, he becomes so uxorious that he neglects feats of arins
and is generally criticized for his slothfulness. Enid overhears these
murmurings, and, knowing that she is the cause of the change,
is greatly disturbed over it. One morning, accordingly, whilst
they are lying in bed together, she gives feeling expression to her
regret, thinking that her husband is asleep. He is half-awake, how-
ever, and makes her tell the whole story. Vexed by her recognition
of the truth of the criticism, he then orders her to array herself
in the best manner, puts on his armor, and, without revealing
to her or anyone else his purpose, he rides away, accompanied
by her. As a culmination to her unhappiness, he bids Enid under
no circumstances to speak to him. They had not journeyed far,
however, before Enid, observing that three robber knights — one
of whom wanted her horse — were about to attack her husband,
and unable to restrain her fears for his safety, breaks his command,
in order to warn him of the danger. Though he rebukes her for
speaking, he takes advantage of the warning. Now, in those days,
two or more knights would never assail a single adversary together
in a joust — consequently, Erec is able to dispose of all three,
in succession, and make his wife lead away their three horses in
front of him. Just after this we have a repetition of this incident —
only, in the second case, there are five robber knights. That night
Erec proposed to his wife that she should sleep, whilst he re-
mained awake, but she refuses, and, by way of penance for having
angered her husband, insists on guarding the horses all night long.
whilst he sleeps. — Next day a squire gives the husband and wife
food and conducts them to the house of a citizen near his lords
castle. Furthermore, he extols the pair to his lord so highly that

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Biblsography 191

the latter goes to this house, falls in love with Enid, and importunes
her to become his paramour, whilst Erec is out of hearing. In
order to escape from her unwelcome wooer, she pretends to con-
sent, but puts him off until the next day. Early in the morning,
however, she awakes Erec and warns him of their new peril. They
ride away, therefore, after having requited the host for his enter-
tainment with seven of their horses. When the count and his
men the next day follow after them, Enid first sights their pur-
surers, and warns her husband, who, as in the previous instances,
upbraids her for speaking to him, but gets ready to defend himself.
He slays, then, the seneschal and unhorses the count — the two
men who lead the rest. The remainder of the band stop to look
after these two, which enables Erec and Enid to get away. More-
over, the count now penitent, calls off his followers from the pursuit.

Eree’s next encounter is with Guivret le Petit, who defends
his tower, surrounded by a moat over which a drawbridge is thrown.
Erec wins, but is, himself, badly wounded in the combat. Never-
theless, the adversaries become friends, when the fighting is over,
and bind up each other’s wounds. Continuing his journey, the
hero arrives at a plain where Arthur is hunting. Kay, on ob-
serving him, springs upon Gawain’s steed, the Gringalet (Guinga-
let), asks who he is, and wants him to come to the king and
queen. Erec refuses, whereupon there is a quarrel and a joust in
which Kay is unhorsed. On learning, however, that Kay’s steed
belongs to Gawain, Erec gives him back the animal to be returned
to its owner. Arthur now sends Gawain to fetch Erec to him.
When Erec declines to come, Gawain despatches a secret message
to the king to shift his tents to a place on the road by which Erec
would have to pass. He, himself, stays with the young knight
and delays him, until Arthur has had time to make the change. Thus
our hero is trapped and is compelled to accept the king’s hospitality
and tell his name. His wounds are, also, healed with a lotion
which Morgan le Fay had presented to her brother, Arthur. Erec,
however, insists on resuming his journey with Enid the next day.
In a forest through which they pass they find a girl in despair
over her lover, Cadoc de Tabriol, whom two giants have carried off.

Google

192 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Erec follows and slays the giants and restores Cadoc to the girl
and sends him to Arthur, whilst he, himself, rejoins Enid. The
heat of the day and the weight of his arms, however, cause his
wounds to burst open again, so that he faints before his wife. She
thinks that he is dead and is about to kill herself with his sword,
when Count Oringle of Limors comes up and tries to comfort her
by offering himself as her husband in Erec’s place. She repels
this offer, but he takes her back to his castle with him — also, the
(supposedly) -dead body of her lord. Moreover, he forces her
to go through the form of a marriage with him, but, when at the
marriage feast that follows, she still shows herself obdurate, he
strikes her in the face. His own barons protest against this bru-
tality, and, in the midst of the ensuing uproar, Erec regains con-
sciousness, draws his sword, and slays the count. The barons are
panic-stricken with the apparent spectacle of a dead man come to
life again and flee, so that Erec and his wife are able to escape,
the latter sitting on the neck of her husband’s horse as they ride
away. LErec tells her now that he is, at last, convinced of her love
for him and that her trials are at an end. A rumor of Oringle’s
wicked conduct had reached Guivret le Petit and he hurries to Enid’s
rescue, As it happens, however, he meets Erec and Enid in the
night — not knowing who they were — jousts with Erec and un-
horses the latter easily, since he has been much weakened by his
wounds, On learning his identity, Guivret takes his friend to his
castle and, with the help of his (Guivret’s) two sisters, cares for
him until he is well enough to depart for his own country. On the
day of their departure, however, Erec and Enid, accompanied by
Guivret come to Brandigan, the superb and impregnable castle
of King Evrain, which was situated on an island. But there was
a peril connected with the place, viz., the adventure of the Joie
de la Cour (Joy of the Court). In spite of Enid’s anxiety and
warnings from Guivret, Evrain, and the people, in general, Erec
resolves to try this adventure, which was as follows: There was
on the island an orchard of never-fading beauty — a sort of earthly
Paradise — cut off from the surrounding world, not by any mate-
rial obstacle, but by a wall of air, merely-through the power of

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography — 198

necromancy. The fruit of this garden it was impossible to bring
to the outside world. Erec penetrated the garden through its
narrow entrance and observes there the impaled heads of his un-
successful predecessors, with a fresh stake ready to receive his own
head and a horn hanging on it. After leaving Evrain, Enid, and
the rest, he follows a path which brings him to a sycamore, under
which there is a bed and a beautiful girl lying upon it. Soon
a knight appears, threatens him for approaching the girl, and then
attacks him. After an obstinate combat, Erec is victor and an-
nounces his success by a blast on the horn. It turns out that his
opponent was Mabonagrain — a nephew of Evrain — who had
formerly lived at the court of Erec’s father, and that the girl
was @ cousin of Enid’s, who had bound her lover by a don never
to leave the enchanted garden until a knight should appear who
could vanquish him. The happiness of the people over the ter-
mination of the spell justified the name of the adventure — Joy
of the Court. Brec, Enid, Mabonagrain, and his amie, all leave
the garden now, rejoicing. Four days later Erec and his wife begin
their journey to Arthur's court at Robais and, on their arrival
in that city, they are cordially welcomed by the king and his
consort. The court, however, moved later to Tintagel, and after
a short sojourn there Erec hears of his father’s demise. He ack-
nowledges Arthur at once as his suzerain and begs him to come
and crown him at his (Erec’s) court. Arthur consents and the
coronation, consequently, takes place at Nantes in Brittany, in
the presence of a great throng of kings and nobility, both from
the British Isles and from France, and amidst the most splendid
festivities. .

Tennyson’s well-known Geratnt and Enid (in later editions of
the Idylls of the King divided into two parts, Geraint and Enid
and The Marriage of Geratnt) is based not on Chretien’s poem,
but on the Welsh prose tale, Geraint, on whose relations to Chre-
tien see I, 1O8ff., above.

2. Cliges. Cp. I, 1138 ff.

3. Lancelot (Conte de la Charrete). Cp. I, 1938ff.

4. Thomas’s Tristan. Cp. I, 122ff. and I, 157ff.

Hefperia. Exgdnsungsrethe: 9, 18

Google

194 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

5. Yvam (Chevalier au Laon). Cp. I, 95—6.

6. Perceval (Conte del Graal). Cp. I, 223ff. and I, 290ff.

7. Li Biaus Descouneus (Le Bel Inconnu). Edited by C.
Hippeau: Le Bel Inconnu (Paris, 1860 — very incorrect — and
by G. Perrie Williams: Ia Biaus Descouneus (Oxford, 1915).
6228 lines. Author, Renaud de Beaujen; Dialect, Picard; Date
probably, between 1185 and 1190. Only MS. known, XIV H 6
of the Musée Condé (Chantilly).

For bibliography see the conclusion of this article.

Arthur is holding court at Charlion (Caerleon) when a young
knight (the hero) appears and asks a don (boon) of him. Accord-
ing to his custom in the romances, the king grants the boon before
he knows what itis to be. The young knight will only give Biel
Fil as his name, so that Arthur nicknames him li Biaus Des-
couneus (The Beautiful Unknown). Just then a fair damsel,
named Helie, appears accompanied by a dwarf, and begs the king
for a champion to deliver her mistress, the daughter of King
Gringras, from a spell, by performing the feat of the fier batssier
(bold kiss). The hero at once claims the adventure from the king
in fulfilment of his promise. Helie is greatly dissatisfied that so
inexperienced a person should be assigned to the task and rides away
with her dwarf. The Beautiful Unknown, however, with his squire,
Robert, overtakes her, and on the advice of the dwarf, she reluc-
tantly accepts his company. He soon has opportunities for con-
vincing her of his qualifications for achieving high adventures:
(1) At the Perilous Ford he overcomes Blioberis, its redoubtable
defender, (2) the same night, in response to the cries of a girl
(Clarie, Sagremor’s sister) he rescues her from two giants whom
he slays and in whose cave the party finds plentiful provisions (3)
vanquishes three friends (Elins — or Heluins — de Graies, li
Sires de Saies, and Willaumes de Salebrans) of Bhoberis, who try
to avenge his disgrace. In those days — fortunately for our hero —
not more than one knight at a time would attack another knight.
He is, therefore, able to slay Willaume, wounds Elin, and send
the lord of Saies, as he had done Blioberis, to Arthur’s court. So,
too, with Orguillous de la Lande, who endeavored to recover from

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Biblsography 195

Helie one of his hounds which she had appropriated. Our hero
had, himself, vainly urged her to return the dog, but when she
would not, felt constrained to defend her against the attacks of its
master. — They come next to the castle of Becleus, where there
was a tournament, with a sparrow-hawk as a prize. The knight who
won this prize would turn it over to his lady and was supposed
thereby to have vindicated for her the claim to superior beauty
over the ladies of the rival knights. Our hero offers himself as
the champion of Margerie, sister of Agolant, King of Scotland,
whose lover had been slain in this contest — vanquishes the slayer,
Gi(f)flet, son of Do, and sends him to Arthur’s court. He next
comes to the castle of the Isle d’Or (Golden Isle), whose mistress,
La Pucele as Blances Mains (Girl with the White Hands), is versed
in the seven arts, astronomy, etc. As events prove, she is really
a fairy. The castle is indescribably beautiful, but at the head of
the causeway by which it is reached there are 143 helmeted human
heads impaled upon stakes. These are the heads of the knights
who have failed to win the mistress of the castle, for, according
to the custom of this stronghold, the successful suitor must have
defended its approaches seven years against all comers, the victor
in such contests being required to take the place of the vanquished
and carry on the defence. No one, however, as yet had fulfilled
this condition. When our hero slew Malgiers li Gris, its latest
defender, the people manifested such joy as had not been known
““gince Jesus formed Adam.’’ Our hero is entertained now splend-
idly in the castle, and its beautiful owner wishes to marry him —
even tempts him by visiting his room in the middle of the night —
but he sticks by his promise to deliver Helie’s mistress. He next
comes to the castle of Galigans, where, according to the custom
of the place, he has first to overthrow its lord (Lampas), before he
can enjoy its hospitality — then to the Gaste Cite (Waste City),
a place of extraordinary beauty, which, however, has been deserted
by its inhabitants — only at the palace he finds in the windows
of the great hall jongleurs apparently playing on their musical
instruments, a lighted candle before each. In this hall he has to
joust with two knights. As he cuts off his second adversary’s
13°

Google

196 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

head, smoke issues from it and the phantom jongleurs disappear,
leaving the hall in darkness. From a chest in the hall now a fearful
‘“‘wivre” (fabulous serpent) appears and from it a great light
streams forth. The creature propitiates our hero by its humility and,
before he is aware, it has kissed him and crawled back into the
chest, whereupon the hall becomes dark again. A voice now in-
forms him that he is Guinglain, Gawain’s son by Blancemal, the
fairy. He falls asleep, and, when he awakes in the morning, he
sees by his side a beautiful lady. It is the Blonde Esmeree (The
blonde, who is like refined gold — a daughter of King Gringras of
Wales), whom he has freed from enchantment through the kiss.
She tells him that she had been transformed by Evrain and Mabon —
the latter a great magician. The true name of the Waste City is
Senaudon (Snowdon). She offers herself to him as his wife and
he accepts her, provided Arthur will give his consent. The in-
habitants of Senaudon now return to their city and sprinkle holy
water over it, to counteract the previous enchantments. — Not-
withstanding the charms and wealth of Blonde Esmeree, Guing-
lain’s heart is still with the lady of the Golden Isle, and so when
he and his new lady-love quit Senaudon for Arthur’s court, he
tells Blonde Esmeree that he has a certain affair which he must
attend to before he can proceed to Arthur’s court, and so turns
aside to visit the Isle. He meets the mistress of the latter on a
hunting party before he reaches her castle. She forgives him his
previous conduct, takes him to her castle, and puts him in a chamber
adjacent to her own, but tests his ardor by her tricks of magic,
before admitting him to her embraces, for, when he twice tries
to enter her room in the night, he seems to himself the first time
to have walked out on a narrow plank over deep waters and the
second time the roof appears to be falling in upon him. Both
times he arouses the whole castle by his screams. After this, how-
ever, the lady of the castle has him conducted to her bed by one
of her maidens and they spend the rest of the night together. She
tells bim then how she had always loved him and kept watch over
him, had prompted Helie to go to Arthur's court, had announced
to him his name after the adventure of the fier batsster, etc. She

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 197

makes her barons, too, acknowledge him lord of the land. — In
the meanwhile Blonde Esmeree had arrived at Arthur's court and
obtained his consent to Guinglain’s union with her. When her
lover, however, still failed to appear, Arthur had a tournament
proclaimed for the purpose of drawing him out of his concealment.
Sure enough, a jongleur brings Guinglain news of the proclamation
and he is eager to go, despite the opposition of his fairy-love.
Owing to her supernatural powers, however, the latter knows that
it 1s useless to resist his wishes, and so the next morning, on awa-
kening, he finds himeelf lying in a wood with his squire and his
arms by his side. He next rides on to the Castiel des Puceles
(Maidens’ Castle), where the tournament is to be held. A list
of knights who participate in the affair is given and the jousts
are described at great length. Guinglain is, of course, the victor
in the tournament. They all adjourn now to London and then
to Sinaudon (in Wales), where the marriage of the hero and Blonde
Esmeree is celebrated.

In the opinion of the present writer, there is nothing speci-
fically Celtic about this romance. It is filled with imitations
of episodes and details in Chrétien’s works — especially, the Erec.
There has been much debate as to its relations to the cognate ro-
mances: 1. the Middle English Libeaus Desconus (composed about
1350), last edited by Max Kaluza, Leipzig, 1890. 2. the Italian
Carduino (about 1375), edited by Pio Rajna as I cantars di Cardu-
tno in Poemetts Cavallereschi, Bologna, 1873, 3. the Middle High
German Wigalois of Wirnt von Grafenberg (about 1210), edited
by F. Benecke (Berlin, 1819), and by F. Pfeiffer, ibid., 1847.
Besides the editions, see G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 171ff., H. Men-
nung, Der Bel Inconnu des Renaut de Beaujeu in seinem Verhilt-
nis zum Lybeaus Desconus, Carduino, und Wigalots (Halle, 1890),
W.H. Schofield, Studies on the Libeaus Desconus, Harvard Studies
and Notes in Philology and Literature, IV (Boston, 1895), E. Phili-
pot, “Un épisode d’Erec et Enide: La joie de la Cour. Mabon
Venchanteur,’ Romania, XXV, 258ff. (1896), and review of
Schofield, ibid., XXVI, 290ff. (1897). Kaluza takes the French
romance as the immediate source of No. 1; all the other scholars

Google

198 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

postulate a (lost) common source for the two. Philipot connects,
however, Lé Biaus Descouneus rather with the Lanzelet than with
the Perceval, and, despite verbal borrowings of the former from
Erec, denies (wrongly, in my judgment), its dependence on the
latter, as far as the theme of the Joie de la Cour is concerned.
Similar differences of opinion prevail as to the relations of Car-
dwino and Wigalois to the French romance. For all these questions
see Schofield’s Studies. For the Wigalots and its sources, cp.,
particularly, F. Saran, “Ueber Wirnt von Grafenberg und den
Wigalois,’ PBB, XXI, 253—420 (1896). Saran concludes
(p. 412) that Wirnt had no knowledge of In Biaus Descouneus,
but followed a lost French romance, Wigalois (Guiglois), of the
twelfth century.

For an Irish parallel to the tricks which the fairy of the Isle
d’Or plays on her lover in this romance, cp. Kittredge Gawain and
the Green Knight, p. 265.

8. Robert de Boron’s Joseph and Merlin, cp. I, 230ff.

9. Pseudo-Wauchier’s contmuation of Chrétien’s Perceval
(Conte del Graal). This occupies ll. 10602—21916 in Potvin’s
edition of the Conte del Graal. For authorship, date, etc. seeI, 290 ff.
Its most significant episodes have already been analyzed in the
text above, in one connection or another. The following outline
ig mainly intended to indicate the links that unite these episodes.

At the end of Chréetien’s Perceval Gawain was at a castle
(Chastel des Merveilles), where Arthur’s mother (Ygerne) and
Gawain’s own mother and sister were then living. Gawain, how-
ever, had been separated from his mother since infancy and he
recognized none of the three ladies. At the beginning of Pseudo-
Wauchier’s continuation Ygerne tells Gawain who she is and, also,
who his mother and sister are, and Gwain, in turn, surprises Arthur
by telling him that Ygerne is still alive, for Arthur has been under
the impression that she had died thirty years before. It appears,
however, that on Uther Pendragon’s death Ygerne had got together
rouch treasure and fled to this place, had had a castle erected there,
and then sent for Gawain’e mother, whose husband (Lot) had been
slain. This lady came, gave birth to Clarisse (Gawain’s sister) at

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 199

the castle, and had lived there ever since. There is a fight now
between Guiromelant, Clarisse’s lover, and Gawain, but, on the
girl’s solicitation, Gawain stops the combat and gives her to Guiro-
melant, who now does homage to Arthur, like all the other barons
of the illes de mer, except Brun de Branlant. Arthur, accord-
ingly besieges Branlant. During this seven years’ siege, Gawain
and Yvain, pitying the distress of two beautiful girls among the
besieged — Lore de Branlant and Ysaune de Carahais — induce
Arthur to eend food into the city, which prolongs the siege. Brun,
however, finally submits to Arthur. During this siege Gawain,
. one day, comes upon Brandelis’s sister in a tent in the forest and
lies with her. Because of his renown, she had been in love with
him before she ever saw him. Her father resents Gawain’s act
and attacks him, but is slain. Brandelis, immediately after, at--
tacks him, too, but Gawain, enfeebled by a wound, received in the
previous combat, begs Brandelis to adjourn the duel, which he
consents to do. After Brun’s submission, Arthur gives Ysaune de
Carahais in marriage to Caraduel — father of Caradoc. Here
begins, then, the interpolated Livre de Caradoc (Karados), for
which (with its motsfs of the sorcerer’s intrigue with Ysaune, the
beheading game, Caradoc and the serpent, etc. ) seeI,300ff., above. —
Next comes the episode which describes how Caradoc rescues Cador's
sister Guimer (his future wife), from Aalardin and how they
all go to Aalardin’s tent, where there was a harp that sounded |
discords, whenever an unchaste girl approached. Swearing to be
companions for life, Caradoc, Cador, and Aalardin proceed the
next day to Arthur’s court at Caerleon, where there is to be a
tourney. The long and vapid description of this tourney in Pot-
vin’s text, ll. 183481—14943, is not in the Mons MS. and seems
manifestly an interpolation in the Livre de Caradoc (itself an
interpolation). It is the only part of Pseudo-Wauchier in which
Perceval appears. — The story of the sorcerer’s intrigue with
Ysaune is here resumed and the episode of Caradoc and the serpent
related. The next episode is that of the test of the chastity of
wives by means of the drinking-horn, Bounef. If a man’s wife
is chaste he can drink from this horn without spilling any of its

Google

200 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

contents — otherwise he cannot. When Arthur insists on trying
the horn, Guinevere endeavors to defeat the object of the test by
praying that he may be wetted. Only Caradoc is successful in
this test. — Arthur becomes melancholy over the thought that
he has not rewarded his knights properly and summons them from
every quarter to Caraheut for Whitsuntide. At a feast there he
observes an empty seat (Gifflet’s) at the table, falls into a revery,
takes a knife from Ionet (his carver), rests the knife on a piece
of bread and thoughtlessly wounds his hand slightly. On seeing the
blood, he becomes conscious of his surroundings again, wraps his
hand in a napkin to hide the blood, and tears drop from his eyes.
When Gawain inquires the cause, he replies that it is because of
the treason of his knights. The barons, offended at this speech,
press for an explanation; they even follow him to his room, still
demanding an answer from him, and Gawain breaks down the door.
It turns out that their treason consists in their failure to rescue
Gifflet from his prison in the Castel Orguellous. Acknowledging
their wrong, Gawain etc. go to the siege of this castle. On the
way Kay is humiliated, when he tries to carry off a roasted pea-
cock (paon roti) from another castle. They next come to the
Castiel de Lis, which Gawain recognizes as belonging to Brandelis,
because he observes the latter’s shield on the wall. In the castle
everything was splendid, the table was laid out with delicious
viands, ete., but no one was visible. Gawain warns Arthur that
they must be on their guard, for they are in the castle of his
(Gawain’s) enemy — tells him® then how five years before he
had ravished Brandelis’s sister (somewhat later called Gloriete)
and killed one of her brothers and had only escaped being killed
by the other brother — Brandelis — by persuading him to adjourn

* This is evidently a variant of the story, told above, con-
cerning Gawain's relations with Brandelis’s sister. There, however,
the girl submits willingly to his embraces. Moreover, the resentful
relative whom Gawain kills is, in the earlier passage, her father, not
her brother. It looks as if, in the progress of the work, the author
thought that he could improve on his first draft of these incidents, but,
after composing a new version of them, neglected to cancel the old one.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 201

their combat and conclude it before witnesses — since when they
had never met. Just then Kay, pursuing a hound out of the
castle, comes upon Brandelis in a garden, and the latter, hearing
that Arthur is in his castle, gladly rushes to the king and greets
him and his retinue effusively, but, on seeing Gawain, attacks him,
some of the men holding candles as they fight. His sister, how-
ever, brings in the little boy whom she had had by Gawain and puts
him between the combatants. Touched by the child’s innocence,
the spectators implore Arthur to stop the fight. On the king’s
appeal to him, Brandelis desists and becomes Arthur’s man. Soon
after they reach the Castel Orguellous, Lucan is captured and
thrown into prison with Gifflet. Whilst hunting in the forest,
one day, Gawain’s finds Li Riches Sodoters (The Rich Soldier),
lord of this castle, lying under a tree, with his senses completely
benumbed, it would seem — the reason being that his lady-love
had failed to meet him at the time that she had promised. She
arrives a little later, however, and goes with her lover back to the
castle. This lord is subsequently vanquished in a joust by Gawain,
but, fearing lest the news of his abasement might cause the death
of his amie, he entreats the victor to act as if he had been vanquished
and to present himself to the girl in this assumed character. Gawain
acquiesces in this strange proposal and surrenders his sword to
the girl, after which she is sent to another castle, so that she may
not learn the truth. Li Riches Sodoiers now frees his prisoners,
tells Arthur the truth concerning his combat with Gawain, and
becomes the king’s man. In the meanwhile, Gawain’s son by
Gloriete has been abducted ‘by unknown parties. Nevertheless,
Gawain leaves the search to the child’s uncles and returns with
Gloriete and Gifflet to Britain, where he soon joins Guinevere
at the Castiel des Ormiaus (Castle of the Elms). At this point
begins the Grail adventure, the main features of which have already
been indicated above, I, 295ff. — viz. the incident of the knight
who dies so mysteriously, declaring that it is Gawain’s duty to
avenge him on his unknown slayer, since he (Gawain) is really
responsible for his death, Gawain’s wanderings on this errand,
including the incident of the chapel and the bodiless hand, his

Google

202 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

arrival at the Grail castle and his experiences there. — After these
Grail adventures come the enfances of Gawain’s son (whose ab-
duction, however, still remains unexplained) — inter alia, his en-
counter with his father, neither, at first, knowing the other’s
identity. This, then, is followed by the incident of the swan-drawn
boat, containing the body of a dead knight with a letter in its
pouch begging the king to place the body in his (the king’s) hall,
but to let no one draw out the fatal truncheon (still in the mortal
wound ), unless he should promise by a thrust of this same truncheon
and in the same part of the body to slay the person who gave the
wound. (The dead man, we learn later, was King Guingamuer or
Brangemuer — child of a mortal father and a fairy mother.)
Gawain’s brother, Karahes (Guerehes), who had himself, suffered
humiliation at the hands of a little knight in the castle of the
(unnamed) slayer, achieves this adventure and kills the slayer.
After that he goes to the castle of the fairy-mother of the man
whom he had avenged. The mother rejoices. When Karahes wakes
up the next morning, he finds that (by the fairy’s power) he has
been borne to Caerleon in the same swan-drawn boat as the dead
body of the fairy’s son, and a girl is sitting by his bed. This girl
goes up into Arthur’s hall, and, on seeing the corpse there, falls
into great grief, but declares that the dead man has now been
avenged. With Arthur's consent, she has the corpse laid in the
swan-drawn boat again and it is thus conveyed back to the fairy.

10. Here Pseudo-Wauchier ends and Wauchier takes up the
story. He, in turn, is followed by Manessier and Gerbert, suc-
cessively. In our chapter on the Grail we have indicated already all
essential matters relating to the Grail in the 40,000 lines and up-
wards which these three continuators contributed to the Conte del |
Graal. There is really nothing else of interest in their work. In
any event, there would be no commensurate benefit, if we should
still further expand the bulk of this treatise by adding minute ana-
lyses of these interminable continuations. See, therefore, the above-
mentioned chapter for what is said in regard to Wauchier.

11. Beroul’s Tristan, cp. I, 158, note 7.

12. Meraugts de Portlesguez. Edited by Matthias Fried-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 203

wagner, Meraugis von Portlesguez: altfranzdsischer Abenteuer-
roman von Eaoul von Houdenc, zum ersten Mal nach allen Hand-
schriften herausgegeben (Halle, 1897). 59388 lines. Author, Raoul
of Houdenc (in the department of Seine-et-Oise) — Dialect, Isle-de
. France (southwestern border). Date about 1200.

G. Paris, HLF, XXX 220ff., E. Stengel, Vollmdller’s Jahres-
bericht, VI, Teil, II, pp. 91f£f. (1904), Caser Habemann, Die léte-
rarische Stellung des M. de P. tn der altfranzdsischen Epik, Got-
tingen, disse., 1908. G. Huet: Le Lancelot en prose et Meraugis
de Portkacae. Romania, XLI, 518ff. (1912).

Lidoine, the heroine, was daughter of the King of Cavalons in
Great Britain and succeeded to his kingdom. She was so celebrated
for her beauty and courtesy that people came from a great distance
to see her. She attends a tournament at Lindesores (probably
a corruption of Windesores = Windsor), which has been proclaimed
by the Lady of Landemore and in which the prize, a sparrow-hawk,
is to be awarded to the most beautiful woman present. Among the
participants in this tournament are two knights, Meraugis de Port-
lesges and Gorvains Cadruz, who had hitherto been devoted friends.
Both, however, fall in love with Lidoine — Gorvain on account
of her beauty, Meraugis, on account of her courtesy — and their
friendship thus turns to enmity. They fight a duel, but Lidoine,
hearing about it, comes and stops them and makes them agree to
submit their claims to Arthur’s court at Cardoil during the Christ-
mas festival When the time arrives, however, only ladies are
allowed a voice in the decision. The case is argued with much
subtlety by the fair judges, but finally they all decide that Merau-
gis, in placing courtesy above beauty in love, has deserved the lady.
Gorvain wishes to renew the strife, but is compelled to submit and
Meraugis is ‘“‘seized of” his mistress by a kiss, which at once in- .
stils love of him into her heart. Nevertheless, she had already set
the condition that he must show himself worthy of her for a year
before she would consider marrying him — only now, however,
she resolves to accompany him on this year’s wanderings. — Just
then an ugly dwarf turns up and reminds the king that a search
should be made for Gawain, who had gone on a quest for the Sword

Google

204 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

with Strange Hangings (of Chrétien’s Perceval). Meraugis under-
takes the task and leaves the court, accompanied by Lidoine and the
dwarf. His first adventure is as follows: They come upon an old
woman who wears a golden circlet on her white hair. She has taken
the dwarf’s horse away from him and he, in turn, predicts eternal
shame for Meraugis, unless Meraugis recovers it for him. The old
woman says that she will return the animal, if Meraugis will knock
down a shield which is hanging on a tree nearby. The young knight
does this, and she returns the horse, but, at the same time, heavy
groans begin to issue from a neighboring tent — in which, as it
turns out, there are three ladies. No one will explain the cause
of these groans and Meraugis goes on. He next overthrows a
knight Laquis de Lampagres, who, in fulfilment of a fantastic vow,
is attempting to defend a ford on bare horse-back, without saddle,
bridle or spurs. Meraugis learns from Laquis the mystery of the
shield and the groaning ladies. The shield is that of L’Outredote
(the One Feared Beyond Measure), who was so wicked that he
deliberately endeavored to promote wrong in every way. Having
fallen in love, however, he was forced by his lady-love to abstain
from all violence until somebody had first wronged him. Ac-
cordingly, he had hung up his shield in the hope that some one,
by striking it down, would release him from his constraint. Me-
raugis had done this, and the ladies were lamenting over the renewal
of L’Outredote’s violence which they foresaw. In spite of his
protests, Meraugis now compels Laquis to go to the ladies and
remain with them until L’Outredote’s arrival. L’Outredote, having
been informed by the girl who rode off with the lance in regard
to the insult to his shield returns to the tent and in a fight which
he forces upon Laquis blinds him in one eye and tells him that he
_ is going to kill him, after he has compelled him to guide him to
Meraugis. In the meanwhile, the dwarf has diverted Meraugis
from an enchanted glade, where even the bravest become cowards,
and taken him to King Amangon’s court to be his champion in
a tournament, The victor in this tournament has the privilege
of choosing husbands for all the girls in the kingdom that year,
and the dwarf wishes to marry a hunchback damsel even more

Google

Narrative Lays: Anaiyses and Bibliography 205

hideous than himself. Meraugis, of course, wins in this affair and the
dwarf gets his bride. In the meanwhile, Laquis and his captor had
been seeking for Meraugis, and, after some difficulties, the former,
being sent ahead by the latter, finds him and tells him of L’Out-
redote. Meraugis, however, continues his quest for Gawain and,
advieed by the dwarf, goes to the esplumeor Merlin (Merlin’s
Retreat) to inquire about his friend. Here in a meadow, on top of
an inaccessible rock, there are twelve young women who possess
the gift of prophecy, and one of them answers the hero’s questions
from aloft. - Though puzzled by the oracular terms in which her
answer is couched, he follows her directions and goes to a cross-
roads where the three roads that fork here are respectively named,
according to an inscription in red letters, the Merciless Road, the
Road Contrary to Reason, the Nameless Road. He follows the
third of these roads and comes to a beautiful city by the sea,
called first the Nameless City. When the blowing of horns an-
nounces the approach of Meraugis and Lidoine, the inhabitants
rush forth from their city with singing and every manifestation
of joy, led by the seneschal, Mcliadus. Meliadus wishes at once
to take Meraugis to an isle which lies in sight of the city. He
refuses, however, until he learns that a knight is occupying the isle,
which is owned by a lady and that the joy of the people is over the
prospect of a fight. Whoever wins in this combat will possess
the isle and the lady. Meraugis crosses over and jousts with the
strange knight. They are at first pretty evenly matched, but after
midday the island-knight’s strength waxes perceptibly. Before
there is any decisive issue to the duel, however, the fact is diselosed
that this knight is Gawain. The friends, therefore, lay aside
their arms and greet each other cordially. It turns out that Gawain
18 held captive by the lady of the isle and has to fight all comers
until some one slays him and succeeds to his office. Meraugis,
however, suggests the following plot by which they are able to
escape from the isle: They continue their duel until Meraugis
is apparently slain; that night, however, he rises up, surprises the
lady and her damsels in the castle, imprisons them, and the next
day, clad in the lady’s clothing, manages to obtain control of

Google

206 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

a vessel which brings provisions to the island and thus escapes with
Gawain. They are shipwrecked in the harbor of Handitou, but
get to shore safely. In the meanwhile, Lidoine, thinking, like
everybody else, that her lover is dead, in deep grief, takes refuge
with a noble lady, Amice. Qn the other hand, Meraugis, being
unable to discover Lidoine, becomes almost insane. He and Gawain
now separate, vowing always to help each other. Whilst Meraugis
is engaged in a fight with Maret, L’Outredote passes by, and Me-
raugis 8 opponent consents to the postponement of their affair,
in order that Meraugis may pursue his deadliest enemy. Meraugis
follows L’Outredote into an enchanted garden, where he finds him
dancing and carrolling about a pine-tree with a number of girls.

Our hero is about to attack his enemy, but, himsclf, falls under
the spell of the place and joins the carols, too. This releases, how-
ever, L’Outredote from the spell and he goes outside and waits for
Meraugis with the intention of attacking him. — Whilst Lidoine
is on her way home from Amice’s dwelling, accompanied by the
latter, Belchis li Lois, under the guise of hospitality, gets her into
his castle and tries to force her to marry his son. Lidoine pretends
compliance, but sends Amice to Gorvain and to her seneschal,
Anchises li Ros, for aid. Gorvain comes with his own men and
hers. Belchis at first defeats Anchises — afterwards, however,
being assailed by Gorvain, flies to his castle, Monhaut, where he
is besieged by Gorvain. — In the meanwhile, another knight had
_taken the place of Meraugis in the enchanted carols, but the latter,
though free, required some time to regain full possession of his
faculties. Whilst still in this condition, he proceeds on his journey,
meets L’Outredote, and, after a desperate fight, kills him, and cuts
off his right hand, which he had promised Laquis, but, himself,
becomes unconscious. Belchis’s brother-in-law, Meliant de Lis, finds
him in this state and carries him to Monhaut, without knowing who
he is. After some days Meraugis is convalescent and learns where
he is— also, that Lidoine is under the same roof as himself and that
Gorvain is besieging the castle. Later on, whilst he is sitting in the
hall, with head shaved and, in his weakened condition, looking alto-
gether like a fool, the ladies of the castle come in, and he and Lidoine,

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 207

recognizing each other, both faint. They manage, however, to con-
ceal the cause of their emotion. — By this time Gawain has achieved
the quest of the Sword of the Strange Hangings and returned to
Arthur’s court (held at Butost). Amice, who is there, lays on
him the blame for Lidoine’s misfortune. Accordingly, Gawain
collects an army and a fleet and goes to Lidoine’s rescue. From
jealousy of Gorvain, Meraugis, as soon as he is well, resolves to
assist the besieged side. He wishes, too, to measure his strength
with Gawain’s and issues forth for that purpose. He unhorses
Calogrenant, but before his encounter with Gawain has had any
decisive result, Gawain learns who he is and surrenders himself to
him. Gawain, moreover, accompanies Meraugis back to the castle
and there swears allegiance to him — so do Belchis and all his
followers, save Meliant de Liz: — The battle with Gorvain is,
at this point, renewed and Meraugis performs such deeds of valor
that Lidoine pretends to be astounded that the fool she had seen in
the hall was capable of them and asks to see him. As soon as the
lovers are brought into each other's presence, they give themselves
up to mutual embraces — much to Belchis’s anger. Having pledged
their allegiance, however, to Meraugis, Belchis’s followers insist
that Meraugis must have his lady-love — hence Belchis yields.
On hearing of this, Gorvain abandons the siege, but challenges
Meraugis to a duel at Arthur's court. The duel takes place, and,
Gorvain having been vanquished, the two men become reconciled
and renew their old friendship.

Concerning this romance, besides Friedwagner’s introduction,
ep., especially, G. Paris, HLF XXX, 220ff., and on the supposed
Celtic episodes of Gawain’s isle and the enchanted carols, F. Lot,
Romania, XXIV, 325ff., and KE. Philipot, ibid. XXV, 267, 269,
283, note2. Their Celtic origin, however, is, in reality, very question-
able. Friedwagner attempts, moreover, to identify the scene of
the story with North Britain, but it is not at all likely that the
author had any definite region in mind: he merely adopts the usual
fanciful geography of the romances. Nothing in the present ro-
mance seems definitely Celtic, save perhaps one or two proper

Google

208 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

names, like Gorvams Cadruz (according to Lot op. cit., 326, =
Welsh Gwrvan Cadrawd).

The whole complex of episodes in which the dwarf and L’Out-
redote figure is extravagant and insipid, and the romance is marred,
furthermore, by some faults of construction. Note, particularly,
the manner in which Gorvain, so prominent in the beginning, drops
out of the action entirely for almost the whole of the remainder
of the story — also, how Lidoine is almost completely forgotten
by the poet in the account of the hero’s wanderings down to his
first combat with Gawain. Nevertheless, the Meraugts is, un-
_doubtedly, one of the best of the Arthurian romances, outside of
Chrétien. Especially noteworthy are the vivacity, grace and charm |
with which the debate of the ladies over the respective claims of
Meraugis and Gorvain (ll. 855ff.) is conducted. The incident of
the Enchanted Carols (il. 3663 ff.) is distinguished, in some de-
gree, by the same qualities. Good too, is the episode (ll. 2815ff.) of
the Nameless City and Gawain’s isle, and the account (ll. 4073ff. )
of Belchis’s war with his enemies is, perhaps, the most effective
description of warfare in the metrical romances of the Arthurian
cycle. — The poem owes much to Chretien, but little — and that
not directly — to popular tradition. In turn, it was frequently
imitated by subsequent writers — especially, in the prose ro-
mances. Cp., for example, pp. 224 below.

13. La Vengeance de Raguidel. First edited by C. Hippeau
under the title, Messire Gauvam ou La Vengeance de Ragutdel
(Paris, 1862). This edition, however, is negligible, since the ap-
pearance of the one by Mathias Friedwagner (Halle, a. s. 1909):
La Vengeance de Raguidel. 6182 lines. Author, Raoul — doubt-
less, identical with Raoul de Houdenc. Friedwagner has adopted
the title which the author himself gives to the poem; the scribe
of the Chantilly MS. however, calls it Des Aniaus (On the Rings).
Dialect, Isle-de-France (southwestern border) Date about 1200.

Besides Friedwagner’s introduction op. G. Paris; HLF, XXX,
45ff., W. Zingerle, Ueber Raoul de Houdenc und seine Werke (Er-
langen diss. 1880), Max Kaluza, Ueber den Anteil des Raoul de
Houdenc an der Verfasserschaft des V. Ragutdel: Festgabe fir G.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 209

Groéber, pp. 119ff. (Halle, 1899), Richard Rohde, La V. Raguidel:
Eine Untersuchung tiber thre Beewnflussung durch Christian von
Troyes und tiber ihren Verfasser. Gottingen diss. (Hannover,
1904), M. Friedwagner, Die V. Raguidel nach der Middleton-
Handschrift (Halle, 1918).

Arthur had passed Lent at Rouvelent (Ruddlan in Flint-
shire?), but at Easter held court at Caerleon). It was his custom
not to eat before some adventure happened. One day he is greatly
vexed because none happens, but orders his knights to ptoceed with
their meal without him. That night, being sleepless, he rises and
goes to the window and sees a ship with no visible crew come to
shore before the palace. He goes down to the ship, alone, and
finds in it a knight with a broken lance (truncheon) stuck in his
body lying on his shield in a cart, with five rings on his fingers
and a letter in his pouch. The letter calls for an avenger, but
no one will be able to assume that role save the person who can pull
the spear out of the corpse, and the vengeance must be executed
with this same spear. Moreover, the avenger must have the aid
of the knight who alone can draw the rings from the dead man’s
fingers. Kay, Bliobleris, Lancelot, and Tristan-Who-Never-
Laughed try in vain to pull the spear out — only Gawain succeeds.
Gawain, however, fails to draw away the rings; this is done by an
unknown knight (really, Yder).. Kay rides after this knight, but
comes upon another knight who is being pursued by the one Kay.
is looking for. The latter slays his adversary and unhorses Kay,
who is borne back to court, much humiliated. — Gawain now goes
forth on his mission of vengeance. On seeking shelter for the
night, he is directed by a herdsman to the castle of the Black
Knight, with warnings, however, as to the owner’s cruelty, of
which the row of impaled heads before the castle furnish con-
vincing proof. He.sees nobody, when he first enters the castle,
but partakes of an abundant meal which is set out on a table there.
Whilst he is thus engaged, the Black Knight — Maduc le Noir —
assails him, but unwarily consents to refrain from attacking him,
until Gawain has eaten three morsels. Gawain, masticating these
morsels very slowly, reaches out for his arms. His adversary, on

Reiperia, Ergingingsreihe: 9. 14

Google

210 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

horseback, now attacks Gawain, who is on foot, but Gawain kills
his‘'enemy’s horse. In a moment, however, the Black Knight has
mounted Gawain’s own steed, Gringalet, whereupon Gawain per-
suades him to fight him on foot, for if Gringalet is killed and he
(the Black Knight) is victor, he (the Black Knight) will have lost
the finest horse in the world. In the end, Gawain vanquishes his
opponent, who now explains his cruelty as due to an unfortunate
experience in love: He had apparently won the love of the Pucele
del Gaut Destroit (Maid of the Narrow or Difficult Wood), but
in a tournament at her castle he had been vanquished by Gawain

(after he, himself, had vanquished all his opponents) and his lady-

love had then proclaimed Gawain her favored lover. Gawain, how-
ever, had eluded her advances. He knew that, if he could kill
Gawain he would regain her love, but, having no acquaintance

with the latter, he spared no one that he vanquished, lest Gawain
might be among them. He agrees now to abandon his evil custom

of giving no quarter, does Gawain homage, rides forth with him
and meets with a party of his lady-love’s men, who, in obedience
to her command, have killed the famous white stag in his forest.
These men endeavor to escape, but Gawain overtakes them, quiets
their fears, and accepts their invitation to their mistress’ castle.

The lady of this castle, indignant on account of Gawain’s former
ignominious treatment of her, had arranged a window in her secret
chapel with a sort of guillotine device by which she purposed killing
him in a treacherous manner, but being deceived by one of her
damsels into thinking that he was Kay, she did not recognize him

and even told him, herself, of his previous conduct to her and of

her consequently murderous intentions. He had, before this, un-
suspectingly thrust his head through the window, but is hence-
forth on his guard. His brother, Gaheriet, was already imprisoned
in this castle and was taken out every day to be scourged. At the
suggestion of the lady’s damsel, Marot, Gawain gets up very early
the next morning on the pretext that he must continue his journey,
but Marot keeps the door of the garden unlocked, so that he re-
turns in time to rescue his brother, when the latter is led out for
his daily beating. At the same time, Gawain discloses his identity.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Biblsography 211

He next flies to Maduc’s castle, bearing with him Gaheriet, who
is weak from his long incarceration, and Maduc learns now for
the first time who had vanquished him a few days before. He aids
Gawain and his brother, however, loyally, and Gawain, in the
same spirit, refuses to look out for his own safety and abandons
his host — only it is decided that he must escape from the castle to
bring help from the outside. This is effected in a night-attack.
Whilst Gawain and Gaheriet are on their way to get help, Gawain
rescues a noble girl named Ydain from a would-be ravisher, Li-
coridon. Both rescuer and rescued fall in love with each other, and
when the former is entertained at the latter’s castle, they spend
the night together. When the Maid of the Difficult Forest learns
from Licoridon of Gawain’s escape, she gives up the siege of Ma-
duc’s castle, and Maduc at once apprises Gawain of this by’a mes-
senger, who overtakes the latter, whilst he is en route to Arthur’s
court with Ydain. Somewhat further on Gawain learns from a
knight of the recent mantle-test of the chastity of the ladies at
Arthur’s court, which only the amie of Caradeul (Caradoc) Brief-
bras stood successfully. When Gawain and Ydain join the court
at Rouelent, Kay mockingly twits the former with having neg-
lected to avenge the dead knight of the opening episode of the poem.
As a matter of fact, Gawain had forgotten to take with him the
broken spear (drawn from the corpse) with which alone the revenge
could be accomplished. Kay intimates, too, that Ydain will prove

untrustworthy, like all other women. Just then a hunchback ©
knight, Druidain, appears at court and requests a don of Arthur.
Arthur not only grants it, before knowing what it is to be, but
compels his knights to bind themselves, also, to fulfill the boon.
The don turns out to be a request that Ydain shall be given him.
Gawain is angry and wishes to prevent the execution of the pro-
mise by force of arms. The hunchback is willing to fight the matter
out on the spot with any knight, except Gawain — with Gawain
he will only fight it out at another king’s court. In the end, they
decide to fight a duel at the court of Baudemagus a month hence.
Kay again reproaches Gawain with delay in his original project
of vengeance. Taking with him the truncheon which he had drawn

14*

Google

212 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

from the corpse, Gawain now sets out for Baudemagus’s court.

On the way, a knight claims Ydain from him. When they agree
to allow her ta choose between them, she pretends to be indignant
that Gawain should consent to accept such a solution of the dispute
and surrenders herself. to his rival. Her real motive, however, was
@ sensual one, which we will not describe here. After Ydain has
journeyed some distance with her new lover, she forces him to go
back and recover her two dogs, which she had left with Gawain.
The lover proposes to Gawain that the dogs shall be permitted
to choose whom they will follow, but Ydain will not agree to this,
and so her lover has to sacrifice his life in a combat with Gawain.
As soon as he has expired, his fickle amie overwhelms Gawain with _
manifestations of affection and disparages the dead man. Gawain
receives her, however, rather coolly and makes her go ahead of
him on his way to Baudemagus’s court. In the duel between him-
self and Druidain there, he wins, but presents Ydain to the van-
quished man. — After this Gawain resumes his quest to avenge
the dead knight, and, as it chances, comes upon the ship which
had brought the latter’s corpse to Caerleon. He enters the vessel
to inspect it, taking his steed in with him. Before he knows
it, the ship sails away.and takes him to a district of Scotland,
apparently, uninhabitated. Finally, he comes to a fine city. From
a park near this city there issues forth a dwarf singing of Tristan
and Iseult, of Paris and Helen, and he is followed by a lady whose
clothes are turned wrong side outward and who is sitting on a horse
with her face towards its tail. Gawain learns from her that she
had loved a proud knight, named Raguidel (spelt here, Raguidan),
whose deadliest enemy was Guengasonain, nephew of the King
of Scotland. Now, a fay, named Lingrenote, had once held Gu-
engasonain captive in the Nameless Castle, and, after dubbing him
knight, had given him enchanted arms that no one could resist.
Owing to his enchanted weapons, Guengasonian had slain Ra-
guidel in combat, and the broken spear which gave the mortal thrust
remained in the wound. Just after Raguidel’s death, an unknown
damsel appeared on the scene and comforted his disconsolate amée
with the promise that her lover’s death would be avenged by two

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 213

men then living. This girl next had the body laid on the dead
man’s shield in a cart and taken to a haven, where it was trans-
ferred to a ship. She also put five rings on the fingers of the
corpse and placed a letter in a pouch attached to it, calling for
vengeance and stating the conditions for the successful execution
of the same. The damsel then vannished and the vessel moved off.
On the other hand, the dead knight’s amie made the fantastic vow
that she would wear only clothes turned inside out, etc., until her
lover had been avenged. Gawain learns from her that the knight
who drew the rings off Raguidel’s finger was Yder and that he
was in the forest of Tabroan — also, that Yder hates Guengasonain,
not because he had killed Raguidel, but because the latter refused
to give him his daughter — who loved Yder and whom Yder loved
— declaring that she should marry no one save the man who should
have slain him. Guengasonian, as Gawain still further learns,
is always accompanied by a bear, for he knows that he can only
be killed by the cooperation of two knights, and he wants a helper.
Despite the girl’s warnings that he can accomplish nothing alone,
Gawain hunts for Raguidel’s slayer and attacks him. At first
he uses his own spear, instead of the truncheon that was neces-
sary for success, but afterwards the truncheon — both without
effect. His horse,.maddened by a wound, throws its master and
Guengasonain withdraws unharmed. In the meanwhile, Yder had
seen the ship which had borne Gawain to Scotland, had recognized
from certain signs that his friend was in the land, and had in-
formed Raguidel’s amie of the identity of her interlocutor (Ga-
wain). He now arrived upon the scene just as Guengasonain is
withdrawing and elays the latter’s bear. The combat is about to
be renewed when Guengasonain, of his own accord, offers to forego
the advantage of his enchanted arms and armor and proposes that
he and Gawain should fight it out with new equipment, as in an
ordinary contest of bravery and skill, at the castle of Raguidel’s
amie. These proposals are accepted and Yder bears Guengasonain’s
message to his followers to bring him what he needs. Gawain
slays his adversary and beheads him, whereupon, Raguidel having
been avenged, his (Raguidel’s) amée abandons the fantastic cus-

Google

214 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

toms which she had adopted. By rights, Guengasonain’s daughter
and his estates now belonged to.Gawain, but, in response to Yder’s
entreaties — her barons having given their consent — Gawain re-
nounces her in favor of his friend. He leaves the happy pair in the
enjoyment of their honeymoon and travels slowly towards Arthur’s
court. The bridal couple do not set out for the same destination
until eight days later, but they arrive the same day. The king
now learns how Raguidel has been avenged and the people of the
court award the credit for the exploit to Gawain.

This rambling romance is inferior in interest to the Meraugis.
It differs from the latter especially in its rather cynical attitude
towards women, and this difference, even more than some supposed
differences of language and metre, has caused certain eminent scho-
lars to deny the identity of the Raoul who wrote it with Raoul de
Houdenc. Cp., for example, G. Paris, HLF. XXX, 48, Foerster,
Lancelot, p. CX, Gréber, Grundriss, II, I, 512. But the excessive
deference for the fair sex, in the spirit of the amour courtois, which
marks the Meraugis, may well have been put on, and the diver-
gence just noted can hardly be regarded as an adequate ground for
denying the identity of authorship. The same thing applies to
the variant accounts of Yder’s fight with the bear in the two poems
This identity has been upheld by Friedwagner, and, before him,
by P. Meyer, Romania, XXI, 415 (1892). — Similarly, certain
scholars have seen two hands in the present romance, the line 3356
(just after Gawain and Gaheriet’s escape from the castle) being
taken as the beginning of a second poet’s work. On this contro-
versy see Friedwagner’s edition, pp. CXIff. I agree with this
editor that the poem is throughout the work of one man. For
the debate concerning the relative chronology of the Meraugis and
V. Raguidel cp. op. cit., p. CLIII, including note. To the present
writer, the lines (1273ff., 3186ff.) in the latter concerning Merau-
gis plainly presuppose the former. What was said above of the
nomenclature and sources of the Meraugis is true,.also, of the
V. Raguidel.

An abbreviated Dutch version (De Wrake van Ragisel) of
the V. Ragwidel is preserved in the fourteenth century Dutch Lance-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 215

lot Vol. II, Book ITI, ll. 11235—14136, and other fragments of
the same version, apparently, have been discovered elsewhere. On
editions of these Dutch versions and relation to our romance cp.
Friedwagner, pp. CXOVILE.

14. La Mule sanz Fram (The Mule without a Bridle).

This is the title which is given to the romance by the scribe
of the unique MS. No. 354 of the Bibliotheca Bongarsiana (Muni-
cipal Library) at Berne (Switzerland) and which is generally used
in modern references to the poem. The author, himself, how-
ever, calls it, ll. 18f., “‘une aventure de la damoisele a la mure’’ —
mure being a variant for mule. It was first edited by M. Meon
in his Nouveau Recueil de Fabliaux et Contes, vol. I (Paris, 1823),
and, separately, since by Boleslas Orlowski, La Demoisele a la
Mule, conte en vers du cycle arthurien par Paien de Matsieres
(Paris, 1911) and by Raymond Thompson Hill, as a Yale thesis,
La Mule sanz Frain, an Arthurian Romance by Paiens de Maisieres
(Baltimore, 1911). 1136 lines.

Besides the edition and G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 68f., cp.
G. L. Kittredge, A Study of Gawam and the Green Knight, pp.
231—256 (Cambridge, 1916). Author, Paien de Maisieres. Dia-
lect, Champagne. Date, early years of the thirteenth century.

A girl appears at Arthur's court on a bridleless mule, and
craves a champion to recover for her the missing bridle. The
rewards she promises the successful knight are ‘‘li baisiers et l’autre
chose’’ (1. 107). The mule will bear him to the place where the
bridle is kept. Kay first tries the adventure. He is taken by the
mule, first, through a forest infested with lions, tigers, etc., which,
out of reverence for the mule’s mistress, however, do not molest
him — rather kneel down before his mount — secondly, through
a valley swarming with reptiles, and, thirdly (after he and his
beast have refreshed themselves at a fountain), to a broad, deep,
stream, which can only be crossed on an iron rod. Kay is afraid
to traverse this and returns to Carduel, greatly downcast. — Ga-
wain now undertakes the adventure and has the same experiences
as Kay, until he reaches the stream — the Devil’s River, as the
author here calls it. He crosses, however, this stream and comes

Google

216 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

to the castle for which he is seeking. The row outside the castle,
however, of impaled heads of unsuccessful champions is not en-
couraging. Moreover, as the castle is whirling about incessantly,
it is difficult to penetrate. Nevertheless, Gawain accomplishes this,
although the descending castle-gate lops off about one-half of the
mule’s tail. Inside, he at first finds nobody in the streets of the
castle, but afterwards comes upon a dwarf. He questions the dwarf,
but gets no answer. Then a shaggy vtlain comes up out of a cave
and, after taking him to a house, treats him in a hospitable manner
and proposes to submit himself to decapitation that evening, if
Gawain will do the same thing the next morning. Gawain con-
sents, but the decapitated vilam picks up his head, walks off, and
descends into his cave. The following day Gawain submits his
neck in the same way, but, after testing his courage, the vilain
lets him go free.

To win back the bridle, Gawain now has to overcome two
lions, a knight, and two serpents. Having performed these ex-
ploits, he is conducted to the lady of the castle by the dwarf who
had previously refused to speak to him. This lady it turns out was
a sister of the girl who had been deprived of the bridle. She enter-
tains him and offers to marry him, but he declines. Gawain is
now given the bridle, and, as he quits the castle, observes that its
inhabitants are out of their caves and are rejoicing, because they
were free to occupy their houses once more, Gawain having killed
the lions, etc., that had kept them terrified. After he had returned
to court and restored the bridle to its owner, she bestowed many
kieses upon him and rode away, although Guinevere and the rest
urged her to remain.

At the beginning of his poem, the author expresses a pre-
ference for the old ways-very appropriately, for there is not an
incident in his romance that had not already been used by his
predecessors, especially, Chrétien and Chrétien’s first two conti-
nuators. This being the case, there seems to us no need of discussing
the work as if it embodied some Celtic tale. It is simply another
instance of old motifs in a new combination — as it happens, of
the most awkward kind.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 217

There is, furthermore, no reason to doubt that G. Paris, Kitt-
redge, etc., are right in rcgarding the episodes in Diu Créne, ll.
12601 ff., which correspond substantially to La Mule sanz Frain,
as direct adaptations from the latter. Orlowski argues that they
were derived from a common source. Furthermore, it seems safe
to say that no folk-lore significance should be attached to the
fact that the object lost was a bridle. Damsels in the romances
had often been represented as riding on mules — so they actually
do, not infrequently, in Spain down to the present day — and in an
Arthurian romance a (rich) bridle would serve as well as anything
else to start a knight off on a quest, should a lady desire it.

15. Le Chevalser a l'Espee. Edited, with this title, from
the unique MS. 354 of the Bibliotheca Bongarsiana (Municipal
Library) at Berne, (Switzerland) by the following scholars. 1. M.
Meon: Nonveau Recueil de Fabliaux et Contes, I, 127 ff. (Paris,
1823), 2. W. J. A. Jonckbloet, Roman van Walewetn, II, 35 ff.
(Leiden, 1846—8), 3. Edward Cooke Armstrong, Johns Hop-
kins dissertation (Baltimore, 1900). 1206 lines. Author, unknown.
Dialect Isle-de-France. (So Armstrong — not Picard, as Grdber,
II, I, 519, states.) Date, first decade of the thirteenth century.

HLF., XIX, 704ff. — Ibid., G. Paris, XXX, 67f.

Gawain, overtaken by night in a forest, meets a knight who
invites him to his castle the next day. He accepts and the host
goes ahead to prepare for his reception. On his way.to the castle
Gawain is warned by shepherds that no one who goes there ever
returns, but he pays no attention to these warnings. That night
Gawain’s host puts him in bed with his daughter and the bed-
fellows embrace and kiss one another. When Gawain, however,
wishes to go further, the girl admonishes him of the danger he is
incurring. At first he does not heed her — so a sword descends
from above the bed and slightly wounds him. This happens twice,
and Gawain thereafter desists from the effort. In the morning
his host is surprised to find him alive —- then gives him his daughter
in marriage. After the wedding Gawain takes his wife away to
see his friends. They had not gone far, however, before she wants
her dogs, which she had neglected to bring with her — so Gawain

Google

218 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

goes back to fetch them, leaving her in the woods. On his return
with the dogs, he beholds her going off with a new knight. He
halts this knight, but when the girl is asked to choose between
the two men, she chooses the stranger; on the other hand, the dogs
follow Gawain. The girl then tells her new lover that she must
have her dogs. When he demands them of Gawain, however, they
turn away from him and the girl and still follow Gawain. Gawain
and the knight now fight and the former is victorious. Seeing
this, the girl wishes to return to Gawain, but he will not permit
her and utters, at the same time, some sarcastic remarks on the
ingratitude of women.

It will be observed that this romance, whose main merit is
its brevity, consists obviously of two parts — the second of which
(imitated from the Vengeance de Raguidel, |L 4482ff.) is a sort
of fabliau. G. Paris (p. 68) speaks of the tale embodied in the
first part as, doubtless, of Welsh origin, but the motif (known
in folk-lore studies as that of The Imperious Host) is, by no means,
confined to Celtic lands. Cp. Kittredge’s discussion of The Carl
of Carlisle in his Gawain and the Green Knight, pp. 257ff. It
was probably from the present romance that Heinrich von dem
Tiirlin derived the similar episode in Diu Crone, ll. 8116ff. The
author of the present romance mentions (1. 19) Chrétien de Troyes.

16. Gliglois. Preserved formerly in the unique MS. fr. L. IV,
33 (not 23, as G. Paris states), of the Royal Library at Turin.
This MS. was virtually destroyed in the fire of January 26, 1904.
The poem has not yet been edited and is known to scholars, in
general, only through G. Paris’s analysis, HLF, XXX, I161ff.,
which is based on W. Foerster’s copy of the original MS. Its
author is unknown. Paris says nothing concerning the dialect
of the romance. He assigns it to the ‘‘deuxieme époque,’”’ of the
Arthurian romances, by which he means, I presume, the early
years of the thirteenth century. 2860 lines, according to W. Foer-
ster, Zs. f. rom. Ph. II, 78, who calls it Giglois.

The hero is the son of a German noble who comes to Arthur's
court and is turned over to Gawain for instruction in chivalry.
Shortly thereafter, a girl who was appropriately named Beauty

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 219

— joint-heiress, with her sister, of the domain of Landemore —
arrives there, too. She becomes an attendant on the queen and
Gawain courts her, but she rejects him; nevertheless, he is urged
by Guinevere to persevere. Consequently, he gets his squire, Gli-
glois, to enter her service, so that he may constantly keep his master
in her mind, but the squire falls in love with the girl, himeelf.
Gliglois is charged with the care of the falcons at the palace and
one morning, whilst eo employed in the palace garden, Beauty
requests him to help her to lace up her chemise. Propinquity has
its usual effect and the scene ends by the young man’s making
a declaration of love to her. Though really reciprocating his pas-
sion, she replies most scornfully and bids him never enter her
presence again. He is fearfully downcast at this, but takes heart
again, when he observes that she does not betray his audacity to
Gawain. — The Lady of Proud Castle (Chatel Orgueilleux) holds
a great tourney. Gawain goes there, hoping by his prowess to win
Beauty’s heart. Gliglois wanted to go, too, but Gawain ordered
him to stay at home and take care of the hawks. On hearing that
Gawain is to attend the tourney, Beauty objects to being in his
company and resolves to stay at home, also, unless, as she tells
Gliglois, some other knight will escort her. The squire gets the
required escort for her, but afterwards decides to accompany them,
himself, on foot. Owing to the hot weather, in the course of the
day, he strips off successively his coat and his shoes — his feet
were bleeding from the latter — but, notwithstanding his suffer-
ings, his mistress shows herself pitiless toward him, reproaching
him with not having stayed at home. She does not even allow the
knight to lend him a horse. At a monastery, however, she paid
a monk to compose a letter for her (in Latin) — the man made
his living exclusively in this way — and she sends Gliglois with
it and a ring to her sister, bidding him do whatever is set down
in the letter. Shc now rejoins her escort and tells him that she has
sent Gliglois home. When Gliglois reaches his destination, he gives
the letter and the ring to Beauty’s sister, who gets the chaplain to
read the letter to her. As it turned out, the contents of this epistle
were to the effect that the writer (Beauty) loved Gliglois above all

Google

220 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

men and had been merely testing him by her seeming severity —
moreover, that she wishes her sister to do him all honor and equip
him for the tourney. The sister complies with these instructions
and even serves him as an attendant — somewhat to the embar-
rasement of our hero. After he has received from this lady the
arms of a knight, he appears to have been accepted as a member
of the order of knights, in every respect. He goes incognito to the
tournament, wins the prize — a falcon which Beauty’s escort had
put up — reveals his name to the queen and is adopted into Arthur's
retinue. Beauty had by this time confessed her love for him to
the queen, whereupon Gawain drops his own suit in favor of his
former squire and the two young people are married.

It will be observed that the supernatural element is entirely
wanting in this romance. Barring some of the conventional exag-
gerations of the amour courtois, it is a faithful picture of the
actual life of the time, and G. Paris commends it as one of the
best of the genre. Both he and Foerster deny (properly, I be-
lieve) any connection between this poem and the Bel Inconnu group
of romances. Schofield, however, Studies on the Libeaus Desconus,
pp. 180ff., still maintained that such a connection existed. Mani-
festly, this romance is not derived from a folk-tale.

17. Yder. Edited by Heinrich Gelzer from the unique MS.
EE 426 of the University Library at Cambridge (England): Der
altfranzdstische Yderroman nach der etnzigen bekannten Hand-
schrift, mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen und Glossar, zum ersten
Male herausgegeben (Dresden, 1913): Gesellschaft fiir romanische
Literatur, Band 31. 6769 lines preserved. Author unknown. His
language is that of Western Normandy and he wrote probably
in the second decade of the thirteenth century. For Bibliography
see the end of this article.

The MS. is fragmentary at the beginning, but indications
in the poem enable us to reconstruct the missing narrative as fol-
lows: The hero is the offspring of an intrigue between Nuc, Duke
of Germany, and a noble lady at Cardoil. After cohabitation they
break a ring into halves, each retaining a half (as a pledge of mutual
fidelity). Nuc, however, deserts his mistress. When Yder is seven-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 221

teen years old, he goes in search of his father, but seeks him in vain
through many lands. — During theee wanderings he falls in love
with Queen Guenloie at her capital, Carvain (Caerwent in Wales?).
She returns his love, but requires him to prove by feats of arms
that he is worthy of her. Leaving Carvain, he engages himself
as squire to a knight who had got lost in a wood, whilst hunting,
and slays two knights that assail his companion. From this point
on the narrative is preserved.

The knight turns out to be King Arthur. Yder, wishing
to be knighted and hoping for eome opportunity to distinguish him-
self, goes to the king’s court at Pomfret, but Arthur has forgotten
him. Moreover, he isa witness of Arthur’s refusal to aid the Lady
of Maidens’ Castle (Chastel as Puceles) against the Black Knight,
who is besieging her, on the ground that he (Arthur) must first
subdue the rebel, Talac de Rogemont. These incidents so disgust
our hero that he quits Arthur’s court and is dubbed knight, at his
own request, by King Ivenant, whom he chances to meet. As
a condition, however, of granting him this favor, Ivenant requires
him to submit to the test of temptation from his wife at his castle.
In the sequel, Yder resists that lady’s blandishments with even
unnecessary firmness, for by a well-directed kick in the stomach
he lays the temptress prostrate. When the husband hears of Yder’s
behavior, he confers knighthood on the latter, who now proceeds
on his way. Luguein, son of a poor knight, at whose house Yder
spends the night, is accepted as the latter’s spuire. Learning from
his squire that Talac de Rogemont’s castle, which Arthur is bele-
aguering, is-not far off, our hero owing to his grudge against the
king, resolves to go to Talac’s assistance. The sweethearts of the
combatants were present to witness the fight — among them,
Guenloie, who had all along kept herself secretly informed as to
her lover’s movements. Yder unhorses Kay (Quoi) and others in the
battle-defeats particularly an attempt of Kay’s to destroy him —
and wins general admiration. Even Gawain finds his match in
him, but Kay, by a treacherous spear-thrust, leaves him for dead,
and Luguein carries him off the field. Discouraged by this loss,
Talac submits to Arthur. Guenloie is in despair when she comes

Google

222 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

upon her wounded lover with Longuein, but, perceiving that he
is not dead, she renders- him first aid and has him taken to a nun-
nery, where a clever physician soon heals him. Arthur visits the
nunnery and, supported by Gawain’s entreaties, finally persuades
Yder to become a knight of the Round Table.

In a hand-to-hand struggle, Yder overcomes a bear, which
had invaded Guinevere’s chamber, and hurls it into the castle moat
through an open window.

Guenloie besieges Rogemont, because she thinks that her isu
will come to Talac’s aid and she will thus have a chance to see
him. Arthur refuses to help Talac, but Gawain and Yvain, with-
out letting Yder know, go to Talac’s assistance. Angry at their
secret departure, but not knowing where they are, Yder goes forth
alone, escorts out of the forest a girl whose lover had been slain —
he takes the corpse, also, along with them — but en route has an
adventure at a castle — has words there — first with an insolent
dwarf whom he finds roasting a crane on a spit, and then with
the dwarf’s master, named Cliges. Cliges and his lady, it turns
out, had been in Guenloie’s service, but the former had incurred
her displeasure by censuring her for betraying too clearly her
affection for Yder.

When Yder reaches Rogemont, Guenloie had raised the siege,
but her own tent was still there, and a knight was courting one
of her damsels, who was inclined to favor him — only he would
not disclose his name to her. At the girl’s request, Yder tries
to force him to do so. In the combat a purse which contained the
half-ring given by Yder’s father to his mother at the time of his
conception was cut away and fell to the ground. The anxiety to
recover it which Yder displays leads to inquiries concerning the
purse from his opponent, and, in the end, this opponent produces the
other half of the ring and 1s thus revealed as Yder’s father. They.
now leave Guenloie’s damsel and go to seek Yder’s mother by way of
Cliges’s dwelling and Arthur's court.

Arthur becomes jealous of Yder and Guinevere — proceeds
indirectly to test her by asking her, if he, himself, were dead
and she were compelled, on pain of death, to marry again, whom

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 223

would she choose. She, at last, answers reluctantly: ‘““Yder’. He
determines now to do away with his supposed rival — rides out
in search of adventures with Gawain, Yvain, Kay and Yder, being
all the while on the lookout to slay the last-named. They come
upon Guinloie, who tells them of a pair of giants in Malvern Wood,
near Worcester. These giants possess a wonderful knife and who-
ever brings her this knife may claim her hand in marriage. Arthur
and his knights go to this place, and after Kay, who was sent for-
ward to reconnoitre, had been frightened almost to death by the
size of the monsters, the king ordered Yder to advance into the
house, hoping that he would be slain, but, as a matter of fact,
he slays both giants. When Yder is thirsty. that night, however,
Kay gives him water from a poisoned spring and his body swells
up beyond recognition. Two sons of the King of Ireland chance
to be passing by. One of them (Miroet) has great skill in medi-
cine and saves Yder’s life. When Miroet exposes at court the true
cause of our hero’s illness, Gawain and Nuc wish to kill Kay, but
Yder arrives and, on Arthur’s solicitation, generously establishes
peace.

Yder. had brought off the giant’s knife, so that Gueneloie
now consents to marry him and the two are wedded by the arch-
bishop of Warwick. Their union removed all cause for Arthur's
jealous suspicions and he, accordingly, made Yder king. Gawain
now brought Yder's mother and grandmother to Carvain and the
hero’s parents marry.

Of particular interest in Yder are ll. 2565ff., the list of ancient
heroines (taken evidently from Ovid) who were the victims of
love, and ll. 3684ff., a fierce denunciation of monks and the as-
sertion that love is superior to religious observances.

William of Malmesbury’s, De Antiquitate Glastomiensis Ec-
clesiae, Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. 179, col. 1701 (reproduced
by Gelzer, pp. LIVE.), tries to connect Yder’s bear-adventure with
the founding of Glastonbury abbey, but the passage is, doubtless,
a late interpolation, based on the present or some earlier French
Yder-romance. Cp. W. W. Newell, PMLA, XVIII, 496ff. (1903).
For an analysis and discussion of the Yder see, still further, G.

Google

224 Evolution of Arthurian Romence

Paris, HLF, XXX, 199ff. Before bringing out his edition of
the Yder, Gelzer had already published a (Strassburg) dissertation
on the subject, which was later incorporated into the Introduction
to his edition. This dissertation is entitled: Heénlettung zu einer
kritischen Ausgabe des altfranzésischen Yderromans (Halle, 1908).

18. Mannessier’s continuation of Chrétien’s Perceval, Cp.
I, 304 ff. :

19. Gerbert’s continuation of the same. Cp. I, 307 ff.

20. Durmari. Edited by Edmund Stengel from the unique
MS. 118 of the Municipal Library at Berne (Switzerland), Li
Romane de Durmart le Galois. Altfranzésisches Rittergedicht, zum
ersten Mal herausgegeben. Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins
tn Stuttgart, CLVI (Tibingen, 1873). 15998 lines. Author,
unknown. Dialect, border of Normandy and Picardy. Date, pro-
bably second quarter of the thirteenth century.

Leonhard Kirchrath: Is romans de Durmart le Galois in
seinem Verhdltnisse zu Meraugis de Portlesquez und den Werken
Chrestiens de Troyes. Marburg diss. 1884, G. Paris, HLF, XXX,
141ff. Grober, II, I, 516f.

Durmart’s father, Jozefent, was a king in Gales (Wales) and
by his marriage with Andelise (a Danish princess) he had also
acquired the realm of Denmark. His capital is called “la blanche
cite en Gales.’’ Our hero, in his youth, was turned over to a sene-
schal to be brought up, but a clandestine love-affair develops bet-
ween him and the seneschal’s pretty wife. Jozefent threatens to
cast his son off or imprison him, if he will not break off this
affair, but for a long while, however, the young man is deaf to
remonstrances and devotes his whole time to his amie. At length,
however, as he wearies of her, he becomes repentant, and returns
to his parents. — When Durmart was received into the order of
knighthood, a great feast was held in honor of the occasion. Now,
that day Durmart overhears a vilat exclaim on seeing him, “I never
saw such a marvel (as Durmart’s beauty) but once before.’’ On
inquiry, Durmart learns that the man is referring to the Queen of
Ireland. The vilase adds that Durmart and this lady should be
lovers. There are many queens, however, in Ireland and the vilasn

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 225

knows neither the name nor the residence of this particular queen —
so is unable to guide the young prince to her. Nevertheless, Dur-
mart, his fancy having been inflamed by the stranger’s description
of her beauty, determines to seek her. — On the first night of
his journey he comes upon a tree in a forest iltuminated from top
to bottom with candles and a child at the top.” At the same time,
the voice of an invisible person bids him beware to obey its com-
mands whenever this wonder is repeated. — He lands in Ireland,
inquires in vain concerning the queen, but, by chance, meets her,
without knowing who she is, and tells her of his love. She does
not make herself known to him, but promises to take him to the
object of his adoration. She first brings him to Landoc, where
Cardroain has proclaimed a contest, to prove that his amie, Ydain
de Landoc, is superior to the amies of all other knights, a sparrow-
hawk being the prize in this contest. On the road to Landoe, the
queen of Ireland guards Durmart, whilst he is asleep from the
attacks of a hostile big knight — whose name is Nogant, as we
learn later — and wakes him with three kisses. The queen had
expected this big knight to act as her champion in the contest,
but he shows the white feather, and it is finally Durmart who
slays Cardroain and wins for her the prize. He himself, however,
had been wounded in the fight, but is cured by a damsel whom he
comes upon in a red tent, playing chess with her brothers. He
overthrows Fel de la Garde, who had captured this damsel’s lover,
Gladineaz, and sends him as a prisoner to his (Durmart’s) mother.
Our hero’s mind is so full of his (as he imagined) unseen mistress
that he loses his way, and does not get back to the red tent, where
he had left the girl with the sparrow-hawk (really the queen). —

* J. Loth, Mabinogion, II*, 98, says that love for a person one
has never seen is a Celtic motif. But it is found in folktales all over
the world. For the literature of the subject, cp. T. P. Cross, MPh.
XII, 598, note 4 and 612, note 3 (1915).

* Imitated from Wauchier’s continuation to Chrétien’s Perceval,
LL, 34412ff.

* It is a peculiar feature of this romance that the hero, here and
elsewhere, sends his prisoners to his mother.

BHefperta, Ergdnzyungsreihe: 9. 15

Google

226 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

He finds shelter, however, at the castle of Brun de Branlant. Here
he learns, for the first time, that the girl just mentioned was, really,
the Queen of Ireland. On quitting Brun de Branlant’s castle, he
learns, still further, that Brun de Morois has seized Guinevere,
whilst she is under the protection of Yder, son of Nut, and carried
her off to his castle. Durmart goes to this place, vanquishes its
lord, and makes him surrender himself first to Guinevere, then
to Arthur, and next to his (Durmart’s) mother. Finally, he is
to do homage to Arthur. Before his departure on these errands,
Brun treats his victorious adversary with the greatest friendliness.

Durmart next hears from Fel de la Garde of the Queen of Ire-
land’s grief on finding herself separated from her lover (Durmart),
and, on Fel’s advice, he decides to seek information concerning
her whereabouts at Glastonbury, where Arthur’s court is assembled.
He crosses the sea for this purpose, and, contrary to a hermit’s
warning, elects the most adventurous route to his destination —
conquers the fifty robber knights of Roche Brune (Brown Rock),
— visits the castle of the Ten Maidens (who, with their ten amis,
give their lives up to amusement), and participates, along with
Lancelot, Perceval, eto., in a two-days’ tourney at the. Blanches
Mores (White Moors). Geogenant, the handsomest and best knight
of the castle just mentioned, points out to Durmart the chief
knights in Arthur’s host. Durmart, of course, wins the tourney,
but does not claim as his bride either of the girls whose fates were at
stake in this affair, his mind being still wholly occupied with the
Queen of Ireland, as we observe from his long soliloquy. On arriv-
ing at Glastonbury, he is warmly welcomed by Arthur, Guinevere,
etc., but will not become a knight of the Round Table, because
of his uncompleted quest for his ladylove. He overthrows here,
however, a knight, Gladain, who, like his whole train, is clad in
green and bears a green lance. — He next comes to the dominions
of the Queen of Ireland, which Nogant has recently devastated.
He (Nogant) is now besieging the queen, herself, in Limeri (Li-
merick), the principal warrior on her side being Procidas. Dur-
mart joins Procidas’s army at Limerick Mill near the town and
intelligence of her lover's arrival 1s soon conveyed to the queen.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 227

In the first encounter, owing to Durmart’s valor, victory falls to
his side, and Nogant now calls King Arthur to his aid, on the
pretext that the people who hold Limerick are infidels. Arthur,
therefore, summons his vassals together, including Josefent, Dur-
mart’s father, and proceeds to Limerick. Here Kay receives as
a boon from Arthur permission, with fifty knights, to make the
first attack on the enemy. Durmart, however, unhorses him and
wins the admiration of Gawain, Lancelot, etc., who make game
of Kay. Josefent, recognizing the admired knight as his son,
prevails upon Arthur to invite the Queen of Ireland and her barons
to a parley. Angry at this, Nogant vilifies the queen still further
— agserts that she does not believe in God, but, seeing that his
faleehoods are unavailing, he evades a trial by combat by slipping
away on a dromedary (in Ireland!). After his flight the Queen
of Ireland — whose name, as we learn now for the first time, was
Fenise — pardons his men. On the other hand, she tells Durmart
that she will grant any boon that he may request of her and she
_ proves as good as her word, when he asks for herself. The weddirg
is preceded by some rather broad jokes, on the part of the barons,
in regard to the impending nuptials. In connection with his des-
cription of the ceremony itself, the poet argues against those who
contend that a fine lover should not marry his amie. — Later on
Durmart, pondering over the transitoriness of our life on earth,
founds abbeys and performs all sdrts of acts of beneficence. -—
Once again, still later, whilst lost in the forest during a hunt, he
has the vision of the illuminated tree and the child (who bears
five wounds in his hands and feet), and the voice of the invisible
speaker declares that he will not comprehend the meaning of this
vision, until he goes to Rome and confesses himself to the Pope.
Accordingly, Durmart journeys to Rome, accompanied by his wife
and parents, and he and his father deliver the city from the pagan
army with which it is beset, at the time of their arrival, and they
there confess themselves to the Holy Father, who expounds Dur-
mart’s vision as follows: The tree is the world, the candles (some
of which were bright, and some not), are the people, the child
is Christ. They all return now to Bangot (Bangor) in Gales
15*

Google

228 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

(Wales) and thence Durmart and his spouse pass over to Limerick,
to take possession of their dominions in those parts. The poet
concludes his work with a fervent eulogy of largesse and courtesy
and a corresponding malediction upon their opposites.

As Stengel and Paris have observed, five divisions are dis-
tinguishable in the poem. The first of these, which ends with
Durmart’s abandonment of the seneschal’s wife, is, as it were, the
prologue to the romance, the last, which covers the incidents after
his marriage, the epilogue. The author displays more skill than
is usual in this genre in making the sparrow-hawk contest the
centre of the story proper. In connection therewith the hero meets
the other characters of most importance — the heroine and Nogant
— but is not aware of their identity. Later, however, in succession,
at turning-points in the development of the narrative, the identity
of these two characters with the principal participants in the
sparrow-hawk incident is revealed. By this handling of the story
the interest of suspense is gained and at the same time, unity
of plot.

Stengel, emphasizes in the present romance the harmonious
union of the ideals of mediaeval chivalry with Christian morality.
Ho exaggerates, however, the ethical purpose of its author. The
moral tone of the story, is, undeniably, purer than is the case
with most writings of this class, but not more so, for instance,
than in Escanor, and the pious end of the hero is, of course, merely
a mediaeval convention.

The reader will have observed that the supernatural element
is almost wholly absent from Deurmart. It accords, doubtless, with
this realistic tendency that the author has given us so many happy
vignettes of actual contemporary manners. In particular, no other
romancer, perhaps, has exerted himself in the same degree to portray
his knights as practising the very last refinements of courtesy.

The best part of the poem.is, unquestionably, its prologue —
the picture of the youthful hero, sowing his wild oats in the affair
with the seneschal’s wife — the description of the life, devoted
to pleasure the live-long day, which the couple lead together — then
the growing coldness that results from satiety on the part of the

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 229

lover — he does not even kiss his mistress at parting — and her
resignation: “‘I was not the first to ask for love and I shall not be
the last.”” This is one of the few episodes in Arthurian romance
that might have been penned in any age.

21. Li Chevaliers as Deus Espees. The romance is so named
at the end of the text in the unique MS. 12603 (fonds fr., Bibl.
Nat.), and this is the title adopted by Wendelin Foerster in the
only edition (Halle, 1877) of the work that has been published.
Nevertheless, it is sometimes called from its hero, Meriadeus (Meri-
adeuc). 12353 lines. Author, unknown. Dialect, Isle-de-France
(border of Picardy). Date, early part of the thirteenth century.
It ie earlier than the Pseudo-Robert prose Merlsn-continuation
(about 1235), for it is manifestly in imitation of the present work
that Balaain in that romance is called ‘Li chevaliers as deus

A. Mussafia, ‘Li Chevaliers as deus espees,’’ Zs. f. dster-
reichische Gymnasien, XXVIII, 197ff. (1877), G. Paris, HLF,
XXX, 237ff., Gréber’s Grundriss, II, 515f., Robert Thedens, Li
Chevaliers as Deus Espees in seinem Verhdltnis zu seinen Quellen,
tnsbesondere zu den Romanen Crestiens von Troyes. Géttingen
diss. 1908.

Arthur holds. high court in Cardueil at Pentecost. At his
table sat ten kings and all his 366 knights, save Gawain, Tor (son
of Ares), and Gifflet (Gierflet). A messenger from King Ris
d’Outre-Ombre (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Ritho) comes in and de-
mands, on his master’s behalf, Arthur’s beard. Ris wishes to add
it to his mantle, which is woven from the beards of conquered kings.
Arthur, of course, rejects the demand with indignation and pre-
pares to go to Caradigan (here spelt, Garadigan, and identical with
Cardigan in Wales) which Ris has been investing and which he
actually captures before his messenger’s return. Just after he has
received this messenger’s report, a dwarf appears before Ris, bring-
ing him a rich horse-chain from his (Ris’s) amie, the damsel of
Yseland (for Ireland?) and summoning him to carry out his co-
venant with her, — viz. that he would send her Arthur as her
prisoner. Ris now declares that he wants some one to take — by

Google

230 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

night —- the horse-chain to the Waste Chapel from which no one
had ever returned and bring back a portion of its altar-cloth: To
whoever should do this, he would grant any boon that such a per-
son might ask. All are silent until the captive lady of Caradigan,
a beautiful girl, speaks up and offers to undertake the adventure.
Ris assents reluctantly to this and she rides away to the Waste
Chapel through a forest full of fearful sights and sounds — e. g.
she sees two fiends playing with the head of a dead man, in the.
midst of thunder and lightning. After she reaches the chapel
(which we learn later is at the Fearful Castle) a weeping knight,
with the corpse of another knight, comes in, and, hiding behind
the altar, she observes him inter the body in the chapel and hears
him asseverate, as he does so, that no one will ever unloose the dead
man’s sword, except some one of equal beauty and excellence. He
meets other weeping knights outside, assures them that he has
performed their dead lord’s commands, and departs. The lady of
Caradigan now executes her commission, but, in addition, she re-
moves the earth from the newly-buried corpse and ungirds the sword
attached to it and ties it to herself, after which she discovers, to
her astonishment, that she cannot again untie it. She now re-
calls, however, the words (cited above) of the weeping knight about
this sword. When she anounces her success at Ris’s court, he is
fearful lest the boon she will ask for may be to wed him, but she
really petitions him for her inherited estates and he is obliged by
his promise to evacuate them. She goes now to Carduel to ask
a boon of Arthur, too, viz., that he should give her as her husband
the man who could unloose from her the sword which she had ob-
tained at the Waste Chapel. Kay, Yvain, and Dodinel le Sauvage
fail in the attempt, but the following day the hero of the poem,
who, as we subsequently learn, was Meriadeuc (Meriadoc), son
of Bleheri, turns up, is admitted to knighthood on a previous re-
commendation of Gawain’s and the third day succeeds in the test.
He had been a equire to Gawain, but his real name being unknown
to every one — himself included — Kay confers on him the nick-
name, “The Knight of the Two Swords,”’ by which he is hence-
forth known. Immediately, however, after untying the sword, the

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 231

new knight rides off, nobody can say whither — much to the
mortification of the Lady of Caradigan. Arthur despatches Yvain,
Ellit, Sagremor (Saigremor), and Dodinel to fetch him back, but
he unhorses them all. After this he attends various tournaments
and is victor in all.

One day whilst Arthur is dining in his hall, a band of ten
men, with loud lamentations, bring in a wounded knight and set
him down before the king. The same thing is repeated with eight
other wounded knights, yet still no one vouchsafes a word of ex-
planation to the king or his courtiers. Next twenty men bring
in a tenth wounded knight, who, after urgent solicitation and pro-
mises from Arthur that he would not be harmed, divulges the
fact that he is King Ris and that the other knights are his fol-
lowers — moreover, that the Knight of the Two Swords had van-
quished them all and sent them to Arthur. This makes the Lady
of Caradigan urge the king all the more eagerly to obtain the
hero for her as her husband. After Ris and his men are cured,
they proclaim their allegiance to Arthur and depart. At the same
time Arthur sets out for Glamorgan (Clamorgan). Meeting
Gawain on the way he tells him of our hero’s exploits and after
they have joined the queen at Glamorgan sends him in search of
the young knight. Perceval, Yvain, etc., are to participate, also,
in this quest. But before Gawain can quit Glamorgan, he rides
out early one beautiful morning with no equipment save his lance
and shield, and, as it happens, encounters Brien des Illes, whom
his lady has declined to accept, until he has proved himself su-
perior to Gawain (reckoned the best knight in the world). On
learning Gawain’s name — for, under no circumstances would
Gawain ever conceal it, if questioned — Brien attacks him, despite
his unarmed condition, and leaves him for dead on the field.
Gawain, however, recovers himself sufficiently to climb upon his
horse and ride back to Glamorgan. After having sent damsels
to inquire why he did not appear at court, the king and queen go
to him and on hearing of the story of his encounter and his wound-
ing, they are filled with grief. The king now has to have his
nephew guarded to prevent him from arising too soon from his

Google

232 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

sick-bed to go in search of the knight who had wounded him. At
last, however, Gawain steals away from Glamorgan on this errand,
vowing, also, that he would not return until he had found the
Knight of the Two Swords. — At the end of the first day he comes
upon a pilgrim who gives him food. This man turns out to be
Brien’s father and falls into deep dejection, on learning that Gawain
is still alive and that his son, accordingly, has not really won the
inheritance of the Lady (Queen) of the Isles. He is still incredul-
ous, however, and determines to make inquiry in Britain. Next
Gawain is entertained by a hermit, who proves to be his enemy’s
uncle and who, like the father, manifests profound disappointment
that Gawain is still alive. Indeed, the hermit, with the assis-
tance of a vilain, was about to kill his guest, whilst the latter was
asleep, but, conscience-stricken at the last moment, refrains from
doing so. Gawain, the following day, meets a messenger of Brien’s
who tells him of the impending wedding of his master and the
Queen of the Isles and, not knowing who he is, invites him to the
ceremony. On their way to the wedding, the two stop over at the
castle of a cousin of Brien’s and he, too, is plunged in woe, on
hearing that Gawain is not dead. Indeed, he tries to kill Gawain,
but is unhorsed. — Gawain next comes to the castle of a knight-
governor of the Port-Castle — whose lands have been ravaged by
Gerneman of Northumberland, because this knight’s daughter re-
fused to marry him. Gerneman had given them a year’s respite
to find a champion — otherwise at the end of that time, they
would have to surrender their estates and the girl be turned over
to his followers for outrage. Gawain has been struck with the girl’s
beauty, and offers to be her champion, if she will grant him her
love. Undeterred by the spectacle of the impaled heads of 43
previous champions, he fights Gerneman and kills him. On his
return to the castle, the daughter of its lord brings him beautiful
clothing and ornamenis and he, in turn, kisses her frequently.

That night the lady of the castle, herself, brought her daughter
to Gawain’s chamber, but, after many ardent caresses, the girl denies
him the last favor, because she has dedicated her virginity, she
says, to Gawain, the best of all knights. Gawain now discloses

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 233

his identity to her, but she will not believe him until she has
received confirmation of his statement at Arthur’s court, and fi-
nally she leaves the room, still a virgin. The next day she goes
to the court at Karahes (Garahes) and satisfies herself that her
champion was, indeed, Gawain. In the interim, however, the latter
had gone on to Rades, capital of the Lady of the Isles, where Brien’s
wedding and coronation were to be. When the people have as-
sembled for the ceremony, Brien proclaims that he has killed Ga-
wain. On hearing this declaration, the Knight of the Two Sworde,
who was in the throng, springs forward and wishes to avenge the
slain man, since, as he affirms, he, himself, stands next to Gawain
in excellence. But Gawain just then offers himself as really the
slain man’s proper successor. The two now fight to settle the
matter and the younger combatant, astonished at his adversary’s
endurance, asks him his name. When he learns it, he ceases fight-
ing and does homage to Gawain. The latter then denounces Brien’s
assertion in regard to his slaying of Gawain as a falsehood and
challenges him to a combat. Gawain wins in this duel and des-
patches Brien as his prisoner to Arthur's court. Accompanied by
the hero of the romance, Brien forthwith rides away without
speaking to the Lady of the Isles, but to one of her men who rides
after him he tells who he is. On learning that the victorious
knight was really Gawain, the Lady vows that she will marry
only him. — In the course of their journey, Gawain and his com-
panion come upon a squire with a miserable horse, who tells the
young man that his father had been killed by Gawain and that his
mother wished him to avenge her dead husband. The Knight of
the Two Swords then accuses his friend of the deed, but leaves
him without attacking him, and wearing his father’s shield, which
he had received from the squire, rides on until he comes upon
a sword lying on the ground and stained with fresh blood. These
stains only become brighter when our hero tries to wipe them off.

There is a castle nearby, surrounded by a lake. At the request
of a girl from this castle, he crosses the lake and is conducted to an
orchard where the lady of the castle (really, his mother) sat griev-
ing over her husband, who had been recently slain. She had sent

Google

234 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

@ squire to summon her son (the hero of the poem) to avenge his
father, but he had not yet returned. In the course of her talk it is
revealed that this father was the man whom the Lady of Caradigan
saw buried in the Waste Chapel-consequently, the sword which
she had ungirded was the sword of our hero’s father. The Knight
of the Two Swords promises to avenge her. Just then the squire
returns and observes by the shield which he had given the hero
and which he now sees hanging up on the wall that the latter must
be in the castle. This leads to a recognition of her son on the part
of the lady of the castle. She tells him that his father was Bleheri,
and that he is himself now lord of the Valleys of Blanquemore and
the Lake of Jumeles — moreover, that Brien is really the person
responsible for Bleheri’s death, and that he is holding her daughter
captive. Brien in his war with Bleheri, she avers, had trickily
obtained the loan of Gawain from Arthur, the king having, as
usual, granted a don, before he knew what it was to be. He (Brien)
had then disguised Gawain in his own arms and sent him against
Bleheri, with a fatal result for the latter. Bleheri had, before he
expired, directed that he should be buried in the Waste Chapel,
declaring that no one should have his sword, save the person who
could gird it on or ungird it at will — moreover, that his son,
whose name should be kept concealed from him, must avenge his
death on Brien. She tells him, too, about the sword stained with
blood, that it, — according to a letter that accompanied it —
could only be unsheathed by a nameless knight — the most ad-
venturous, etc., that ever was. The Knight of the Two Swords
now quits his mother’s castle, leaving behind him one of his three
swords — the one that Arthur used in dubbing him. He comes
first upon the wife of Menelais, lord of the Fearful Castle, a re-
tainer of his father’s, weeping over the body of her husband, whom
Brien had slain. They carry this body to the Waste Chapel (which
was at the Fearful Castle) and inter it, and when they leave
the place, the young knight carries away the horse-chain which
had been laid on the altar there by the Lady of Caradigan. They
next come upon six more ladies, whose husbands Brien had slain,
and the Knight of the Two Swords overcomes there six more of

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 235

Brien’s knights and despatches them as prisoners to Arthur. When
these prisoners report who had sent them, the Lady of Caradigan
again urges Arthur to fulfill his promise and start in search of
the man she loves, and Arthur does so. On the other hand Brien
is indignant on hearing that our hero has rescued the ladies whose
husbands he has killed, and goes in search of him. He finds him,
but in the ensuing combat is killed. The Knight of the Two
Swords and bis companions now return to Fearful Castle — where
_ the people rejoice over the news of Brien’s death and hang his
representatives — and he restores the lady of the castle to her slain
lord’s possessions. The other ladies he escorts to Arthur’s court,
but, on the way thither, comes to a convent, where his sister had
taken the veil, to escape a marriage with Brien. This sister, whom
he had never seen, he comforts with the news of Brien’s death and
relieves from the necessity of becoming a nun. At this juncture,
the Knight of the Two Swords receives news that the king is in
the forest searching for him. Consequently, in order to conceal his
identity, he now calls himself ‘li chevaliers as dames’’ (Ladies’
Knight). Seeking for Arthur in the woods, he comes upon Gifflet
(Girflet), who makes some disparaging remark apropos of his new
name, and is unhorsed in a joust on that account. After he has
wandered in the forest for a day or two, one of Arthur’s squires
conducts him and his party to the spot where Arthur is encamped.
The: king is himself absent at the time, but the queen, who was
reading a romance aloud to her knights and maidens, welcomes him.
The Lady of Caridigan is, also, there and he falls in love with her.
Nevertheless, he declines the queen’s invitation to stay and so
goes forth to earn still further his lady-love’s esteem by new ad-
ventures — above all, he wishes to solve the mystery of the sword
stained with blood. After his departure, Arthur arrives and is
told by the queen of the young knight’s visit. The ladies whom
our hero had rescued were bound by a promise not to divulge his
identity — not so, however, his sister, who reveals the fact that
the Ladies’ Knight and the Knight of the Two Swords are the
same person and relates, moreover, his recent exploits. The king
now hurries up the quest for the young knight, in order to forestall

Google

236 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

a possible encounter between the latter and Gawain. — In the mean-
while our hero had heard from charcoal-burners concerning a knight
on a litter whom some ladies were attending at the Fountain of
Marvels in the forest, and sets out for this spot. Galien, Brien’s
son, had begun, however, the siege of his (the hero’s) mother at
Tygan about the same time, and Gawain, who is looking for the
Knight of the Two Swords, on learning this, goes to her assis-
tance. With the aid of the men of Sandic — vassals of the be-
leaguered lady — he succeeds in penetrating Tygan. The next
day he slays Galien in single combat and the latter’s forces then
surrender.

The lady is shocked when she is told that her deliverer is
her husband’s slayer. She pardons him, however, and goes a part
of the journey with him when he leaves her castle — luckily s0,
for she is thus able to stop a combat between Gawain and her son,
who, disbelieving the news of the former’s services to his mother,
attacks him on the way. — After their reconciliation, Gawain
wishes the Knight of the Two Swords to go with him at once to
court, but the latter must first go to the Fountain of Marvels,
to solve the mystery of the stained sword. In the forest about
this fountain the two companions have various experiences — en-
counter a dwarf followed by a multitude of beasts — also, a com-
pany of huntsmen chasing a hart. Later they come to the tent
of these huntsmen’s master, who is wounded. The knight who had
inflicted the wound upon him, however, leaves his sword behind and
tells him that this wound will not heal until the knight (hith-
erto nameless) whose name (Meriadeus) is inscribed on the sword
has struck him with it. The wounded man’s wife had, accordingly,
had the sword, with an explanatory inscription attached to it, laid
where many adventurous knights were in the habit of passing.
This was the stained sword, and when our hero struck the woun-
ded man (Gaus, son of the King of Norval) with it, the latter
was at once able to rise and the stains vanished from the weapon.
— About this time Li Rous du Val Perilleus (The Red One
of the Perilous Valley) was waging an unprovoked war on Arthur
and had occupied Dysnadaron, but the king had succeeded in sur-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 237

rounding him in this city. The besieged knight now deserted his
followers, slipping out of the city before day and escaping to his
own country in which he held many of Arthur’s subjects captive
and which was virtually inaccessible to an enemy. After their
lord’s flight, his men surrendered to Arthur. Hearing of the
affair of the Red Knight, Gawain and our hero started for his
country, to set free the prisoners there, but they meet him in
the forest and the younger knight unhorses him, obtains the means
of liberating the captives, and sends him to Caradigan to present
himself there to the Lady of Caradigan as a prisoner and with
a horse-chain about his feet. This was the horse-chain which the
Lady of Caradigan had, herself, laid on the altar of the Waste
Chapel. After freeing the Red Knight’s captives, Gawain and his
companion return with them to the court at Caradigan on As-
cension Day, and there the king, in fulfilment of his promise,
gives the Knight of the Two Swords to his lady-love in marriage.
Gawain, too, now enjoys the love of the daughter of the Lord of
the Port. The Knight of the Two Swords and his bride were
married by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the bride’s cloak
had embroidered on it the history of Arthur from his conception
down to the day of this ceremony. At the end of the poem we
are told that her name was Lore.

This romance is better planned and better written than most
works of its species. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the author
cultivates the trick of mystery in a manner that reminds one of
the prose romances. As a matter of fact, it is doubtless later than
the prose romances of the Vulgate cycle.— the Merlin-continuation
excepted — and the (not very important) points in which it res-
embles the Vulgate Estotre del Sait Graal may be due to imitation
of the latter. Particularly spirited is the narrative of the. battles
around Tygan. Like his fellow-romancers, generally, the author
makes free use of Chrétien. Among his sources, too, are Wace,
Ih Biaus Descouneus, La Vengeance de Raguidel, and Durmart.

22. Fergus. Edited by Francisque Michel for the Abbots-
ford Club: Le roman des aventures de Frégus par Guillaume le
Clerc, trouvére du XIII* siecle (Edingburgh, 1841), and by Ernst

Google

238 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Martin (from a much better MS.): Fergus, Roman von Guillaume
Le Clere (Halle, 1872). Author, Guillaume Le Clerc, who is not to
be confounded with Guillaume le Normand. Dialect. probably,
Isle-de-France. Date, about 1225. 6984 lines. G. Paris, HLF,
AXX, 159f., W. Marquard, Der Hinfluss Kristians von Troyes
auf den Roman ‘Fergus’ des Guillaume le Clerc. Géttingen
diss. 1906.

Whilst holding court on St. John’s Day at Karadigan (Car-
digan), Arthur decides to begin a hunt for a certain white stag in
the forest-of Gorriende (Geltsdale?) near Carduel (Carlisle). Hav-
ing killed the animal, on their return from the chase, Arthur
and his company pass by the dwelling of a rich peasant, named
Soumilloit (Somerled, Smollet), who had married a woman of
noble birth. Despite his wealth, this peasant would compel his
two older sons to keep the sheep every day and the youngest, Fergus,
to plow. — When Arthur and the knights of the Round Table
pass through Soumilloit’s place, Fergus, who is at the plow, like
the countryman who is helping him, is much frightened by the
spectacle of Arthur’s train, but later recovers from his fears and
wants to enter the king’s service. He hurries home and advises
his father of his desire. The father is on the point of chastising
his son for his mad request, but is restrained by his wife and at
last consents and bestows on his son his own suit of armor, which
had not been used for 32 years, and a fine steed. The boy takes
darts with him, too. Attacked en route to Arthur’s court by four
robbers, Fergus slays two and hangs their heads to his saddle-bow.
On arriving at court (in Carduel), he tells the king that he wants
to be one of his knights, which causes Kay, in mockery, to urge
him to undertake an adventure which many of Arthur’s knights
had failed to achieve, viz, that of combating the Black Knight
of the Black Mountain at Nouquctran (where Merlin long lived)
and bring away the horn and wimple that hung upon a lion’s
neck there. Fergus, however, takes the matter seriously, and, hav-
ing been adopted into Arthur’s household, starts off on the ad-
venture. That night, however, when he stops at the house of one
of the king’s chamberlains, his host, observing his rusticity and

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 239

inadequate equipment, induces him to return with him the next
day to Arthur’s court, in order to obtain the proper arms, etc. and
be formally knighted. This is done, and, in spite of the forebodings
of Gawain and others concerning the issue of the enterprise which
the inexperienced young man has undertaken, he sets out for the
Black Mountain. On the way thither he spends the night at a
castle, named Lidel (Liddell). Galiene, the niece, of its lord, falls
desperately in love with the young visitor, and during the night
she goes to his chamber and offers herself to him. Though smitten
with her beauty, he declares that he must execute his present task
before he can enjoy her favors, but that, if he survives the im-
pending fight, he will return and become her lover. On approaching
the Black Mountain, he ties his horse to an olive-tree (in Scotland!),
hangs his shield upon it, too, and climbs to the top of the moun-
tain, which was so lofty that you could see Ireland, England and
Cornwall from its summit. The objects of his search were in
a beautiful chapel. He first smashes to pieces a human automaton
of brass at the door, enters and snatches away the horn and wimple
from the neck of the lion, which proves to be an ivory image. He
now comes out, blows the horn thrice, and remounts his steed.
The Black Knight appears and is vanquished by Fergus, who
spares his life on condition that he will take the horn and wimple
to Arthur’s court and announce himself there as his (Fergus’s)
prisoner. The hero next returns to Lidel, but finds every one there
in dismay, because Galiene has fled, no one knows whither. Her
uncle and Fergus have an amusing dialogue at cross-purposes,
the former inquiring about Fergue’s recent adventure, the latter
answering with questions about Galiene. The young knight, now
bitterly self-reproachful, avers that he will never rest until he has
got news of her. — In his wanderings in search of her he has
various adventures: 1. beats the hideous and insolent dwarf who
guards the entrance of a tent-then vanquishes the lord of the tent,
whom he taunts all through the fighting, and sends him and his
amie to Arthur’s court as his prisoners; 2. overthrows a robber-
knight who holds people up at.a bridge and sends him, too, to
Arthur’s court; 3. kills thirteen out of a band of fifteen knights

Google

240 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

who, after giving Fergus food, try to rob him of his horse, and
sends the survivors likewise, to Arthur. — In the meanwhile,
Arthur thinks that Fergus has been killed at the Black Mountain
and is reflecting how he may avenge him. Kay, on the other
hand, rejoices with bitter jests over the young knight’s supposed
fate, but is discomfited when just then the various captives des-
patched by Fergus arrive at court. Fergus, himself, lives for
sometime on the game that he is able to kill, but at length comes
to a fountain near a chapel in the woods. If one drank of the
waters of this fountain, one could have one’s future perdicted by
a dwarf that dwelt there. This dwarf told our hero that he would
discover Galiene, if he could obtain the white shield at Dunostre
(Dunothar in Kincardineshire) which was guarded by an old hag.

He journeys thither by way of the Castiel as Puceles (Maidens’
Castle = Edinburgh) and embarks at Port la Roine (Queensferry).
The sailors plan to rob him, but he disables all save the captain,
who jumps into the sea, and is able to land at a Saracen town named
Dunfremelin (Dunfermline). Thence he rides to Dunostre. The
brilliant light which radiates from the shield there guides him
to the castle. The giant hag defends the bridge with a scythe,
but Fergus slays her. He next slays a guivre (monster serpent)
and carries off the shield. He now returns to Port la Roine and
the following day, as he rides on, learns from some herdsmen
that he is in a country which belongs to Galiene and that she is
now besieged at Roceborc (Roxburgh) by a certain king. Fergus
proceeds to Roceborc, but en route kills a giant at Mont Dolerous,
delivers two girls whom he had imprisoned, takes the giant’s steed,
which was as savage as its master, and rides away on it to the be-
sieged castle. He attacks the besiegers, kills several of them, un-
horses a nephew of the besiegmg king, and sends his horse to
Galiene and retires to the forest at the close of the day. The next
day Artofilas, the king’s nephew-unhorsed by Fergus the previous
day — induced his uncle to despatch him to Galiene with an in-
solent message ordering her to disperse her forces and to marry
him (the uncle). In her anger Galiene imprudently replies that
within eight days she would produce a champion who would out-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 241

match any two knights that he could put into the field — other-
wise, she would aceept the terms of her enemy’s message. Too
late she regrets her folly, but Arondele, one of her maidens, consoles
her with the promise that she (Arondele) will produce such a
champion for her — either the unknown knight who, the day
before, had so distinguished himself, or some knight of the Round
Table. The girl first goes te Arthur's court (at Cardoil), but
he is in deep dejection, partly because of Fergus’s disappearance
and partly because all of his other chief knights are absent, seek-
ing for Fergus. Arondele is in despair, since it seems impossible
to obtain the needed champion, but on her way home, she passes
by the castle where Fergus had a few days before slain the giant
and where he was now again. Not knowing who he is, she tells
him of Galiene’s imprudent promise, and he decides to go to her
mistress’s aid, without disclosing, however, his purpose to the girl.
He merely tells her that the knight who slew the giant was the
same that did such execution among the besiegers and that he would
doubtless turn up in time to defend Galiene. — When the appointed
hour arrives and no succor is in sight, Galiene is about to commit
suicide by springing from a castle window, but a mysterious voice
restrains her and bids her look towards the forest. She does so
and sees the whole woods illuminated by Fergus’s shield which
he had won at Dunostre. Though he had to fight both the king
and his nephew, at the same time, Fergus succeeds in killing the
latter and overthrowing the former, whom he spares, however, on
_ the condition that in Galiene’s presence he will renounce his claims
to her inheritance and then go to Arthur’s court. Immediately
afterwards he again plunges into the forest. Galiene is convinced
from her interview with the vanquished king that the victor is
Fergus. This king reaches Arthur’s court on Ascension Day, when
all of Arthur’s knights have returned from their quest, and he
relates how Fergus had vanquished him. At this point the fool
jumps up and prophesies that Kay will soon be a fisherman. Ar-
thur is now so eager to see Fergus that he is about to go in quest of
him, but, on the advice of the vanquished king, he decides that
he had better proclaim a tournament to draw the young knight
Refperia, Ergdnsungsreihe: 9. 16 |

Google

242 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

out of his concealment. Galiene hears of the proclamation, and,
as she tells her barons, determines to go there for the purpose of
finding a husband. The tournament is held at Gedeorde (Jed-
_ burgh) and Arthur has granted Kay the privilege of the first joust.
Fergus, who is his opponent, ridicules him in the combat and
throws him over into marshy ground, so that the fool’s predic-
tion is fulfilled: Kay has become a fisherman. After Kay, Fergus,
also, unhorses Lancelot and on the following day Sagremor and
the Black Knight. On the other hand, this second day he merely
makes Perceval yield ground to him, because he is using the sword
which Perceval gave him at the time that he (Fergus) was dubbed
knight. Every night for a week, after the day’s tournament, he
would withdraw scognito into the forest. On Friday of the tourna-
ment week Galiene arrives at court, to ask the king for a husband
and he promises her any one that she may choose. She wants
Fergus and guesses that he is the unknown knight who has so
distinguished himself in the present tournament. He retires, how-
ever, at the end of each day eo how is he to be reached? It
is settled as follows: The next day, when Fergus appears, Gawain
meets him and requests him to come to Arthur. On learning who
Gawain is, Fergus does him reverence and follows him to the king.
Arthur now joins the hands of Fergus and Galiene and on St.
John’s Day the young couple are married at Roxburgh.

The influence of Chrétien’s works — especially, the Perce-
val — is manifest in the Fergus. The romance is one of the feeblest
specimens of its genre, its only original feature worth mentioning,
perhaps, being the localization of the story in Scotland. Moreover,
this localization is pretty exact and some of the places concerned
are not prominent in the real Scotland. Still further, the hero
and his father bear the names of actual Scottish chicftans of the
twelfth century (second half) viz. Fergus of Galloway and Somer-
led, who ruled over Hebrides and Argyle. These circumstances,
taken together with his remark in regard to how cleverly the Scotch
nags are able to get over the bogs, appear to evince, on the part
of the author, a personal knowledge of the country in which he has
laid the scone of his story. Martin has, indeed, plausibly con-

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 243

jectured that the poem was written for Alan of Galloway, a power-
ful Scotch nobleman, who succeeded to his family estates in 1200.

23. Hunbaut (Gawam et Humbaut, Humbaut). The only
edition is Hunbaut, altfranzdsischer Artusroman des XIII. Jahr-
hunderts, nach Wendelen Foersters Abschrift der etnzigen Chan-
tilly-Handschrift zum ersten Male kritisch bearbeitet von Jakob
Stiirzinger, aus dessen Nachlass ergdénzt herausgegeben von Dr.
Hermann Breuer: Gesellschaft fiir Romanische Literatur, Band 35
(Dreeden, 1914). |

The unique MS. (second half of the thirteenth century) in
the Musée Condé at Chantilly is the same that contains, also,
the unique copies of Li Biaus Descowneus, Fergus, Rigomer and
L'Atre Perillos, its press-mark (acoording to Miss G. P. Wil-
liame’s edition of the Li Biaus Descowneus, p. XI) being XIV,
H 6. The poem is a fragment of 3618 lines. Author, unknown.
Dialect, Picard. Date, first half of the thirteenth century (prob-
ably, second quarter).

G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 69ff., G. L. Kittredge, A Study of
Gawam and the Green Knight, pp. 61ff., 99ff.

Arthur is very fond of Hunbaut (one of his knights) and
makes him sleep in his room, so that he may talk to him. Once,
on Hunbaut’s return to court, Arthur asks him: “Is there any
one that does not acknowledge me as overlord?’’ Hunbaut ans-
wers, that there is still one king that does not. Arthur, accord-
ingly, despatches Gawain to summon this king to his presence,
although Hunbaut warns him that the monarch in question is un-
conquerable. Gawain wants company on his jorney and at the
suggestion of his disgusted sovereign takes along with him his
(Gawain’s) sister, who sits on the neck of his horse. Afterwards
the king regrets sending his nephew on such a dangerous ex-
pedition and consents to Hunbaut’s request that he shall be allowed
to go along with Gawain. Arthur even rides after the latter to
admonish him concerning the risks which he will have to run. —
Later Gawain decides that his sister must return to Caerleon and
entrusts her to a chevalier errant, who is to escort her back. This
man, however, is faithless to his trust and carries her off to his

16*

Google

244 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

castle. — In the course of their journey, the two knights are
entertained at a castle which lies on the edge of a country so wild
that Hunbaut warns Gawain, he must eat his fill here, for they
will be unable to get anything again for some time to come. He
warns him, still further, against the daughter of the lord of this
castle, who, as he happens to know, is already in love with Gawain
(though she has never seen him). Gawain promises to be discreet,
but is captivated with the girl, when he meets her, and the two
exchange lovevows that night at the table. When they part for
the night, the father? bids Gawain kiss his daughter; when Gawain,
however, kisses her four times, instead of once, the father grows
so angry that he orders his guest’s eyes to be put out; later, owing.
to the protest of his followers, he revokes this command. That
night the daughter comes to Gawain’s room and stays with him
until morning. — Gawain had been so occupied with the girl
at the castle that he had neglected to eat anything — coneequently,
when, in passing through a forest the next day, he observes a lord
and his vallets cooking venison, he is provoked by hunger to force
himself upon them, and, when ordered away, he drives off this
lord and his men and helps himself to their meal, whereupon
Hunbaut predicts all sorts of dire censequences from this outrage.
As a matter of fact, the lord does return with a hundred men to
punish Gawain, but is persuaded by Hunbaut and his own fol-
lowers that he was, himself, in the wrong. Gawain then accepts
his invitation to go with him to his town, which, as it turns out,
has a flourishing commerce with the Orient. From this port
Gawain and Hunbaut sail for the land of the king who refuses
to acknowledge Arthur's suzerainty. They land there, and, after
two insignificant adventures, come to a rich city, at the entrance
of which they find a hideous vilatn, who is accustomed to challenge
strangers on these terms: he will allow the stranger to cut off his
heed with his axe, provided the stranger will afterwards submit
himself, also, to decapitation. Gawain accepts the challenge and
cute off the vilatn’s head, but defeats the enchantment by at once

* This is the Imperious Host motif, as in Yder, etc.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 245

seizing and holding the vélasn’s trunk, 60 that he cannot get hold
of his head again — consequently, the vila dies.1° Gawain and
his companion now proceed to the castle of the king whom they
are seeking. At its entrance Gawain kills a dwarf who black-
guards him, then penetrates the place and delivers Arthur’s sum-
mons to the monarch inside, who is so taken by surprise that
the two invaders are able to escape before he gives orders for
their seizure. — After returning to their own country, Gawain
and Hunbaut recover a girl’s lover and father for her from robber
knights. Later Gawain compels a knight to marry a girl whom
he had seduced on false pretences and abandoned. Next Gawain
meets his brother Gaheries (Gaheriet), ‘and the two journey on
together, without mutual recognition. They finally have a fight,
because Gaheries is unwilling to bestow upon a lady (Ydone) a kiss
which, according to custom, is her due. Gawain wins and they
recognize each other. — Gawain now goes in search of his sister
and is soon joined in the quest by Lancelot, Sagremor, Kay and
others. Even Arthur participates in this search. In doing so, at
one time, he has to cross a broad river in a boat which had this
peculiarity, that it would capsize, whenever an even number of
passengers tried to use it. Luckily there were only eleven in the
royal party. — Arthur and his men are entertained at the castle
of the Maiden of Gaut Destroit (Narrow or Difficult Wood) who
was in love with Gawain and kept an image of him constantly
by her bedside. This image was so exact that it deceived Kay,
Gifflet, and Yder, and altogether led to some curious misunder-
standings. — Gawain overtakes his sister and her captor (Gor-
vain Cadrus) — vanquishes the latter and makes him take tha
former to Arthur’s court and surrender himeelf to the king. Here
the fragment breaks off.

' This romance is agreeably written, but, apart from its vari-
ante of thé Imperious Host and Beheading Game motéfs, it pos-
sesses little originality. These variants were, no doubt, the author’s:

** This is, of course, a variant of the well-known Beheading Game
motif. Cp. I, 88, above.

Google

246 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

own inventions. He was plainly familiar with the works of Chré-
tien de Troyes (whom he mentions I. 187), Raoul de Houdeno,
and others, and, altogether, in his incidents deviates hardly at
all from the beaten paths.

24. Les Mervelles de Rigomer. Edited in two volumes by
W. Foerster and Hermann Breuer — vol. 1 (text) by Foerster,
vol. 2 (critical apparatus) by Foerster and Breuer — as vols. 19
and 39, respectively, of the publications of the Gesellschaft fir
Romanische Literatur (Dresden, 1908—1915), under the title, Les
Mervelles de Rigomer von Jehan: altfranzdsischer Artusroman des
XIII. Jahrhunderts nach der einzigen Aumale-Handschrift in
Chantilly, zum ersten Mal herausgegeben. 17271 lines preserved,
but about 1500 lines are wanting at the end.

The unique MS. of the romance’! is No. 626 of the Musée
Condé. Author, Jehan (otherwise unknown). Dialect, that of Cam-
brai or Tournai. Date, thirteenth century — probably, second
quarter.

G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 86ff.; H. Kuhse, Der Eenfluss Raouls
von Houdenc auf den Roman “ Les Mervelles de Rigomer.” Gat-
tingen diss., 1914.

Arthur, holding court at Caerleon, observes, one day, his usual
custom of not eating until an adventure has occurred. A dameel,
however, soon appears and challenges his knights to seek adven-

** 11. 15923—17271 were once, also, preserved in the French
MS. 28 (1. IV. 33 — not 23, as G. Paris states) of the Royal Library
at Turin. This MS., however, as was remarked above, was virtually
destroyed in the fire which befell that library on Jan. 26, 1904.
Nevertheless, the fragment had already been edited by E. Stengel, Die
Turiner Rigomer-Episode (Greifswald, 1905), and it had been used,
also, by Eugen Pessen in his Die Schlussepisode des Rigomerromanes:
Kritischer Text nebst einer Etnleitung und Anmerkungen. Heidel-
berg diss. (Berlin, 1907). Despite Pessen’s contention, Paris and
Foerster were, doubtless, right in asserting that the Turin fragment
was copied directly from the Chantilly MS. Cp. on this episode, also,
Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt. XXX*, 129ff. In the opinion of
the present writer, there is no sufficient ground for the view, which
has often been expressed, that this concluding episode was originally
an independent poem.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 247

tures at Rigomer, the castle of her mistress (Dionise) in Ireland,
promising them, at the same time, many delights there. Yvain del
Leoniel and Sagremor follow her, but are each unhorsed by a
knight a short distance from the court. — Lancelot now takes his
turn. He does not catch up with the damsel, but reaches Ire-
land, and has some minor adventures, chief of which are: he is
robbed by Savari of the Ruiste Valee (Wild Valley), who has
designs on Ingle — known as the Flor Desiree (the flower which
men longed for). Lancelot kills him. He afterwards vanquishes
Maoob Dicrac, who tried to disinherit his own aunt — also, later
on overcomes six servants of the latter, and then his friend, Mau-
duin the Gardener (Savari’s nephew), whose guest he (Lancelot)
had been. Mauduin and his amie are sent by Lancelot to Guine-
vere. — Lancelot receives hospitality from a wild man, who tells
him that he is now in the land of Brefeni (Brefny), which is con-.
tiguous to Conart (Connaught) and much more infested with rob-
bers than the latter. He spends the next night in a house where
a dead man is laid out in a bier and there is no living creature
about, save a great quantity of cats that fill the house. After
a long fight, Lancelot drives them out with a burning brand. The
dead man rises up, but Lancelot hews him down with his sword
and burns up the bier, to put an end to the enchantments of
the place. Two girls then appear and provide him with food,
drink, etc. — He next passes into Conart, meets Toplain (uncle
of Flor Desiree), who had been bed-ridden from a wound in the
head for 30 years, and, owing to a spell, can only keep alive, if
strange knights visit him — had been wounded at Ruigomer.
Whilst Lancelot is at a vilain’s, a knight who has had an eye knock-
ed out at Rigomer comes in and tells about that stronghold.
Lancelot enters now Tuesmomme (Desmond) and is directed to
Rigomer by Buticostiaus, a treacherous knight, whose amie is with
him. Next, whilst lodging with a poor man, Lancelot beats off
an attack of robbers and the following night he spends in the
dwelling of a woman so hideous that she frightens his steed. Her
eyelids were so heavy that they had to be held up artificially.
Journeying on, he again overcomes robber knights — later saves

Google

248 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

the daughter of Frion, King of Desmond (of which Cork is said
to be the capital) from rape, but declines to marry her, though
he leaves her encetnte. — All along, when, at the end of an ad-
venture, Lancelot divulges his name, his interlocutors always ex-
press appreciation of his fame, but warn him against risking the
perils of Rigomer. As he approaches the place, an unarmed knight
advances towards him and tells him of the pleasures that will be
his, if he will only enter Rigomer, disarmed. Lancelot rejects
this condition, and, after jousting successfully with another knight,
is brought by the unarmed knight to the bridge and the serpent.
There he overthrows a white knight, then Li Chevaliers as Armes
Trebles (a big knight with triple equipment), and sends the latter
to Guinevere. He next beats back the serpent. Now begin the
real “wonders of Rigomer,” says the poet. — A magician is ac-
customed to imprison knights in the Fose Gobiene (Gobien Moat).
One of his emissaries, a girl, deceives Lancelot into accepting arms
which betray him into the magician’s power — also a ring which
causes him to forget everything. Thus Lancelot becomes the magi-
clan's captive.

At this point a new division of the romance commences, con-
sisting of the narrative of the adventures of Gawain and other
knights in their quest for Lancelot; for the various prisoners whom
Lancelot had despatched to Guinevere had brought the news that
he had gone to Rigomer. At the suggestion of Gawain, however,
‘Arthur’s knights do not begin the quest until the spring. At that
season they assemble at the Gue de Blano Espine (Whitethorn
Ford) and, after some debate over the number of knights who
shall participate in the quest, Gawain settles upon 56 as the proper
number. They all go to Ireland. Gawain, however, is very soon
lured into the castle of Gaudianet, whose brother he had slain.
There, whilst he is disarmed, dames and dameels seize him and
turn him over to Gaudionet for imprisonment. His companions,
thinking that he had gone ahead of them to Rigomer, travel on
and are attacked by a knight who mistakes them for the forces
of his enemy. They reconcile this knight and his adversary. —
Sagremor in a stag-chase comes upon Oringlaie, ravishees her, and

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 249

leaves his pouch with her. Notwithstanding the outrage, she falls
in love with him, but the affair was destined to bring about his
death. — When Engrevain (Agravain) lodges at a castle, his host,
Robert of Sotain Herber (Solitary Retreat) tells him of how a
storm had recently swept away his (Robert's) amte. This lady
Engravain subsequently discovers under a spell in‘a sort of earthly
paradise within a mountain, where knights and maidens spend
their time dancing and carollmg. He leads a number of knights
into the place and brings off the lady. — Bliobleheri vanquishes
five knights and sends them to his companions. —- A girl’s ac-
cepted lover is disabled and s0 unable to joust on an. appointed day
against an objectionable rival, who is, moreover, assisted by an-
other knight. Yvain puts on the disabled man’s arms and wins
his lady-love for him. — Gaudins li Bruns de le Montaigne res-
cues a girl from four giants who had wounded her lover. — Cliges
of Greece has the adventure of the Astres Maleis (the Cursed
Graveyard) and at the court of Morgan le Fay sees a knight ap-
parently dead and about to be buried — also an empty tomb pre-
pared for himself. After he has dined with a company of knights
and ladies in a neighboring hall, they all go out into the graveyard,
and he draws a truncheon out of the body of the knight who is
apparently dead, whereupon the man springs up at once and chal-
lenges him. The knight had received his wound at Rigomer from
Li Chevaliers as Armes Trebles and was in a state of delightful
trance, as long as the truncheon remained in his body. He can
only be killed by this truncheon, and it is with this weapon that
Cliges finally despatches him. — Waheries (Gsheries) avenges
@ girl on a knight (Mal Ostagier) who had fed her lover’s head to
his faloon — a bird that lived exclusively on human heads —
but she dies from grief. Arthur's knights arrive in sight of
Rigomer. The unarmed knight bids them disarm, before entering
the place, promising them all manner of delights, if they will do so.
He tells them, too, of the captivity of Lancelot and seven others.
Arthur's knights advance, still armed, and reach the serpent-guar-
ded copper bridge. Just then they hear the blast of a horn, which
is at once followed succeesively by a storm, by unendurable heat,

Google

250 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

and by cold of equal severity. After this the knights of Ri-
gomer, though protected by enchantment within the domain of
their castle, conceive such a scorn of the weakness of their op-
ponents that they sally forth into the open. They get worsted,
however, and are only saved by a band of men who are dressed like
black monks, but have armor underneath. The members of this
band, at first, appear invulnerable and irresistible, but Arthur's
men soon discover that the secret of their strength is in their
hoods. At this point, still another band come to the aid of the
knights of Rigomer. This second band have dog-like counte-
nances, horned heads, and hairy bodies, and are swifter than horses.
The two sides now agree to a thirty days’ tournament. Lorie of
the Roche Florie (Flowery Rock), a fairy who had long loved
Gawain, determines to deliver him from Gaudionet’s prison, in
order that he may take part in this tournament and effects his
liberation through Gaudionet’s daughter. She gives this girl a
drug to be administered to her father’s household, whilst the father,
himself, and most of his men are away on a hunt. In return for
this favor, she brings about the marriage of the girl with the
young lover whom she favored as against the rich old man whom
her father desired to force upon her. Thus Gawain escapes and
rides away with Lorie towards Rigomer. On his way, he rescues
a girl from her captors by merely stating his name — overcomes
twelve knights and their lord, in succession: he had plucked a
flower from the latter’s garden and custom required that a combat
against these odds should follow. Between the two adventures just
mentioned, Lorie had left him, with directions not to disclose his
identity at Rigomer. — Though warned by an Irish knight, Gawain
yields to the enticements of a bird called Willeri, which is endowed
with human speech and which also sings exquisitely, and turns
aside to the castle of Wanglent. Its lord, Bauduin, was jealous of
Rigomer, and had set up evil customs there that rivalled those
of the latter place. Gawain survives a succession of combats and
other adventures here — goes on towards Rigomer, of whose perils
he constantly hears more and more — comes upon a girl who is
watching a game of chess, played by automata of ivory and gold,

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 251

respectively, and overthrows two knights here. Being entertained
at the castle of a certain knight, who is not aware of his identity,
he learns from his host of the grief that prevails at Rigomer among
his companions over his absence. On crossing into the domain of
Rigomer two days later, he comes to a meadow in which the grass
would lose its color and the dew fall, whenever a valiant knight
entered it. These signs fail, however, when Gawain rode across
it — hence everyone inferred that there was something extra-
ordinary about him — that he was the knight destined to put an
end to the enchantments of the place. Lorie had already arrived
that morning and Gawain passes the night in her magnificent
pavillion. During the following days he participates in the jousts
and carries everything before him, so that people commonly remar-
ked that here at last was the man to achieve the adventures of
Rigomer. His success, however, excites the enmity of Arthur's
knights, who did not know, however, that it was Gawain. On the
morning of the last day of the tournament, Gawain, barely escapes
an ambush set for him by Gaudoniet, whom he, in turn, captures. —

Then, through enchantment, all sorts of strange races come to
the aid of Rigomer — people with beaks, people that run with in-
credible swiftness on one foot, etc. — A magical deluge of rain
follows and the Britons fare so badly that they long for Gawain.
The latter now proceeds to the copper bridge, but the serpent there,
instead of attacking him, humbles himself before him. Moreover,
the arts of the siren there have no effect on him, and the knight who
comes forth from a cellar at his challenge rushes back at once, as
soon as he sees him. In the kitchen of the palace Gawain finds
Lancelot and his companions bereft of all intelligence and reduced
to the condition of beasts. Under the influence of the magical
ring Lancelot thought that the lady of the castle was his amie, but,
as soon as this ring is pulled from his finger by Gawain, he
regains his reason. Gawain, in the same way, breaks the spell
of the other captives, who had been put to weaving, tilling the
soil, etc. There are great rejoicings throughout the city, but Gawain
still has to achieve the adventure of the falcon on the isle which
is connected with Rigomer by a marvellous bridge, defended by

Google

252 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

copper giants, which only the best of all knights can cross. His
achievement of this adventure is accompanied by signs and wonders.
On his return to Rigomer, the people gather together before the
castle and he sits in a rich chair as on a throne before them. —
So, too, Dionise, Lady of Rigomer, who casts longing eyes at
Gawain. Four kings offer him the crown of Islande (Ireland?)
and he answers that he will take counsel about it. Shortly there-
after, Lorie announces to the throng that she is the hero’s amie
and he, himself, declares, much to Dionise’s grief, that he has
no intention of marrying and has decided to go home — affirms,
however, that, by the expiration of a year, he will procure a suitable
husband for Dionise. Lancelot and Gawain now return to Britain.
Soon, however, a girl appears at court, whilst Arthur is waiting for
an adventure, before eating, and wants a champion against Mirau-
diel, who is trying to compel her to marry him. Gawain is the
first champion, but Miraudiel is so terrified at fighting this re-
nowned warrier that he begs Gawain to remain in his prison until
the day of the combat is passed. Out of pure courtesy, Gawain assents
to this. Then Midomidas, son of King Lot of Galoee, claims the
right to act as champion — unless a better one should present
himself — on the principle that the last knight to arrive at court
- has the right to claim the first combat. But on the day of the
fight, a knight appears at court, with execrable equipment and
riding a wretched steed. He turns out, however, to be Lancelot -
and Midomidas yields the championship to him. Similarly, Mirau-
diel, recognizing Lancelot by a wound in his hand, recently healed,
surrenders to him. Gawain is then freed and Midomidas is wedded
to Dionise. |

A cousin of the heiress of Quintefuele (Quintefeuille) tries
to deprive her of her inheritance — so she sends a message to Arthur
to the effect that she wants him as her champion and nobody else.
His courtiers and spouse oppose the plan, but he insists on going.
Gawain acts as his squire, when he takes his departure, and Arthur
laughs at having the beet knight in the world, he says, to hold
his stirrup when he gets on his horse. Guinevere angers Arthur
by disputing this statement and he threatens to behead her, unless

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 263

she can prove that she is right, when he returns. Gawain expressed
agreement with Guinevere’s statement and promises to help her. —
Lancelot accompanies Arthur on his journey, and when five robbers
assail them he springs forward and disposes of each of them, be-
fore Arthur can do anything. They next pass through the Male
Gaudine (Evil Wood), the haunt of innumerable beasts of prey
and other creatures, which themselves, however, lived in deadly
terror of a panther. When Lancelot determines that he will attack
this animal, his attendants take flight — all, save one, who with
his bow and arrows establishes himself with his back to a tree.
_ Arthur, too, stands his ground. Lancelot next covers himself
with linden branches as a protection against the flames which the
panther breathes forth and inflicts severe wounds on the beast which
cannot see his enemy, because of the branches. Moreover, Arthur
and the valet, also, pierce him with a dart and arrows. The
breath of the panther sets the bushes afire, but he at last succumbs
to his wounds. Lancelot now swoons, and his companions, for
a while, believe that he is dead, but a lady, clad in white, appears
and cures him by anointing him from head to foot with a magical
ointment. Arthur and the valet think, at first, that she is Mary
Magdalen, or, perhaps, even the Virgin Mary, but it proves to be
Lorie. — They go on to Quintefuele and in a duel there Arthuy
slays the knight who wished to disinherit his own cousin. After
enjoying a feast at Quintefuele, Arthur and Lancelot proceed on
their journey, but they had just reached a lovely valley, when the
story breaks off.

Doubtless, in imitation of the latter part of the prose Lance-
lot, this romance, throughout, takes the form of-a quest. We have
here the usual superabundance of trivial adventures, but the ulti-
mate aim of the quest is kept more steadily before the reader’s
mind than is usually the case with works of this nature, and the
narrative is executed with greater verve than is customary in the
later romances. An especially-good piece of diablerte is Lancelot’s
adventure in the house which is haunted by spirits, in the form
of cate, and the bird, Willeri, that “spoke several languages”’

is one of the happiest examples of this folk-tale figure. The author

Google

254 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

lays the scene of the quest in Ireland and adapts his nomenclature to
this conception, but, after all, the Irish names of places which he
employs are few and he knows nothing of that country, save that
it is full of violence of all kinds — consequently, there is no neces-
sity of assuming that he had any personal knowledge of it.

25. Flortant et Floriete. The only edition is Floriant &
Florete: A Metrical Romance of the Fourteenth Century, edited
from a Unique Manuscript at Newbatile Abbey by Francisque
Michel. Printed for the Roxburghe Club (Edinburgh, 1873).
Michel was, doubtless, in error in assigning this romance to the
fourteenth century. The manuscript is of.that date, but the poem,
in all likelihood, was composed in the previous century, for it
appears to be one of the sources of Claris et Laris (begun in 1268).
8270 lines preserved, but a few are missing at the end. Author,
unknown. Dhalect, Isle-de-France, it would seem. Date, prob-
ably third quarter of the thirteenth century.

Fully analyzed in HLF, XXVIII, 139ff., so that G. Paris,
op. cit., XXX, 60, devotes only three or four lines to it. Cp., be-
sides, Grdber, II, II, 789f. and Arturo Graf's essay, “Artu nell’
Kina,” in his Miti, Leggende, e Superstizioni del Medio Evo, II,
303ff. (2 vols. Turin, 1892—3).

Floriant is the posthumous son of Elyadus, a king of Sicily,
and his wife, the daughter of King Clauvegris. Elyadus’s sene-
schal, Maragot (Maragoz, Marigoz) being madly in love with the
queen, who rejects his advances, treacherously murders his master
on a hunt. He wants now to marry the widow, but she, having
obtained a respite, on the plea of pregnancy, flies to Monreal, under
the eare of Omer, lord of that castle. In a forest, on the way,
however, she gives birth to the hero of the romance, who is at
once snatched away to Mongibel (Mount Aetna) by three sea-
fairies, the chief of whom is Arthur’s sister, Morgan. These
fairies take the child to church, have him baptized, and name him
Floriant. In the meanwhile, the seneschal usurps the crown of
Sicily and prepares to lay siege to Monreal. — Floriant, under
Morgan’s care, is well-educated in the seven arts and in knighthood.
She makes him a knight, tells him that he is of royal birth, and

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 255

gives him a magic boat (independent of weather), the corttne of
which is adorned with pictures from astronomy, the tale of Troy,
and love-stories, and sends him to Arthur’s court. En route, he
delivers from captivity a number of Arthur’s subjects who are
held prisoners by Moradas and sends both captor and prisoners
on ahead to Arthur’s court at Cardigan — then kills a monster
that had been devouring the maidens of the Ille as Puceles Beles,
whose capital was La Blanche Ciie, and despatches their queen
(Alemandine), also, to Arthur’s court. This queen arrives at Car-
digan at Whitsuntide, whilst Arthur is waiting, according to his
custom, for some adventure, before commencing his meal. On
hearing of Floriant’s exploit, the king (on Gawain’s advice) pro-
claims a tournament, in order to attract him to it. In the mean-
while, Floriant delivers, still further, a number of girls from a
knight, who, at his amze’s command, was cutting off enough tresses
from the girls whom he halted to make her a tent. (This knight,
however, was not to blame, according to Arthur’s courtiers, for
he was merely obeying his amie). He next lands at a castle oc-
cupied by one of Arthur’s foresters, and soon sees his magic boat
speeding back across the sea, by itself, through Morgan’s enchant-
ment. Equipped with armor by the forester and with two of his
(the forester’s) sons accompanying him, Floriant goes to the tourna-
ment, joins the weaker side, is blackguarded by Kay, but unhorses
some of Arthur’s best knights.1? Just at this moment, he receives
a letter from Morgan informing him of his name and parentage
and, also, of the fact that Maragot is besieging his mother. Ar-
thur and his knights now offer the young man their assistance
and embark for Sicily. On the way they touch at an island which
is inhabited by Sathenes-horrible beasts with huge ears. When
Maragot learns of Arthur’s approach, he begs aid of the Emperor
of Constantinople, the suzerain of Sicily, and the latter sails for
Sicily with an army. A spy brings to Floriant’s mother in Mon-

** The passage seems plainly imitated from the Vulgate Mort
Artu. Cp. Bruce’s edition, pp. 7ff. The author includes (ll. 4767f.)
Galehaut and Mador among Arthur's knights, so he doubtless knew the
prose Lancelot.

Google

256 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

real news of the expected arrival of both Arthur and the Emperor.

The latter arrives first, but he does not oppose Arthur's landing,
because there would be no honor in winning a battle, when his
foe was at such a disadvantage. In the first battle’ between the
opposing hosts, which ends in the Emperor’s retreat to Palermo,
Floriant, charging through the enemy’s lines, chances to catch
a glimpse of Floriete, the Emperor's beautiful daughter, who had
accompanied him to Sicily, and the two fall in love with each
other at first sight. That night, both indulge in love-soliloquies
about each other. The following day our hero’s mother meets
him and learns from him the full story of his abduction by the
fairies. — Floriant and Gawain are the leading knights in the
next encounter, and the sight of the former's exploit intensifies
Florete’s passion for him. She has a heated altercation with some
other girls, who have also fallen in love with Floriant, and vows
that she will marry no one else. Floriant, on his part, in the
midst of the battle, in so overcome by the recollection of Florete’s
beauty that he drops down on the battle-field and has to be taken
home by Gawain and others. Arthur visits him, but cannot ex-
tract from him the cause of his trouble. Gawain, however, is
more successful and encourages him to hopefulness, when he ex-
preeses himeelf in terms of despair in regard to his passion. Florete,
_in the meanwhile, having witnessed her lover’s collapse, feared
that he had been killed and took to her bed, which causes her
father great anxiety. On the suggestion of Blancardine, one of
her attendante, the princess now despatches a boy, named Jolis,
to ascertain the truth about her lover. Filoriant sends a reply
that his fall was due to his love of Florete. Furthermore, through
the same messenger, it is arranged that Floriant and Gawain shall
meet Florete and Blancardine the same night in a vergier. The
couples spend that night and the succeeding nights together in
this place. A dwarf spies upon them and tells the emperor of
what is going on, but Jolis warns the lovers in time for them
to escape to Arthur’s camp. The emperor is furious and attacks
Arthur’s host without success. He then holds a parley with
Arthur, who tells him the truth about Maragot’s treachery. There

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 257

follows a duel between Maragot and Floriant, and the former, being
vanquished, confesses his murder of the latter’s father. Still
further, after the duel, Maragot is tried before a jury of twelve
kings, and, in accordance with their verdict, he is drawn and
quartered. A double wedding is now celebrated in Palermo with
great splendor, the couples being, respectively, Floriant and Florete,
Gawain and Blancardine. The festivities on this occasion lasted
forty days.1* — After this, Arthur, with Gawain and his bride,
sails for London, which he reaches in fifteen days. — Floriant
and his spouse remain in his kingdom of Sicily and in due time
a son is born to them.’ — For three years Floriant performs
no feats of arms and overhearing, by accident, in the streets, somé
women criticizing .him on this score, he resolves to seek adven-
tures in Britain and his wife goes along with him.® They pass
through Calabria and Apulia to the “‘port de Chipre’’ (the chief
haven in his dominion), and, leaving all their knights behind them
there, proceed by way of Rome to Britain, under disguised names,
viz. Li Biaus Sauvages and la Plaisans de I’Ille, respectively. En
route, he kills a dragon (seventeen feet long) and overcomes in
combat a nobleman named Julian, whose wife, in marrying him,
had made him promise that he would bring to her the head of
her first husband’s slayer. Not being acquainted with this slayer,
the second husband was required to fight every knight that came
along and compel him to tell his name. Accompanied by the
vanquished man, Floriant goes to Rome and relieves the city, then
besieged by pagans, killing the Sultan. He then sends Julien
forward to Arthur at Camelot, but when Julien tells Arthur that
his victorious adversary was Li Biaus Sauvages, the monarch does
not know who this is. So, too, with the rest of the twenty knights

* This is, perhaps, the most elaborate and interesting description
of such festivities in Old French romance. The musicians and conteurs,
of course, are very prominent in it.

*“ The archbishop who baptizes the child names him F'roart,
because so many shields will be frowez (1. 6508) by him, when he
is grown.

** The imitation of Chrétien’s Hrec is obvious.

Hefperia, Ergdngungsrethe: 9. 17

Google

258 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

whom he thus sends to Arthur, including Nabudan,'* who had
attempted to carry off Florete. In the course of time, however,
Arthur begins to divine the truth. — Finally, Floriant and his
wife arrive in London at Whitsuntide, whilst the king is holding
his court there, and are cordially welcomed by all. Almost at the
same moment, however, comes intelligence of the death of Florete’s
father and in a fortnight she and her husband set out for Con-
atantinople, which they reach in fifteen days. Later they trans-
fer their residence to Palermo. — One day Floriant is chasing
a big white stag and the animal after leading him to Morgan’s castle
(Mongibel) vanishes there. It turns out that Morgan had sent the
stag for the exprees purpose of drawing him to this castle; for,
says the fairy, he was about to die, and she has now brought him
to a place where no one dies. Hither she will bring Arthur, too,
when he is mortally wounded. Floriant laments the absence of
Florete, but his lamentation is premature, for the same night
Morgan despatches three fairies to fetch her to the enchanted
castle. They found her asleep, after much grieving over her lost
husband, and they bore her back to Mongibel. — Here the frag-
ment ends.

Notwithetanding some extravagances of the amour courtois
in the love-etory, Floriant et Florete is one of the most pleasing
of the later metrical romances. It possesses the great adventage
that an incident, like the siege, with some semblance of reality
occupies the central position in the plot, mstead of a series of
fantastic knight-errant adventures, as is ordinarily the case with
the romances. This feature of its construction gives solidity to
the narrative, as a whole, although even here episodes of the usual
kind, of course, are not entirely wanting. The supernatural ele-
ment in the romance, moreover, is artfully disposed, for, in ser-
ving as a framework to the incidents of the hero’s career, he is
brought up in fairyland and he returns there at the end to enjoy
immortality — it surrounds his whole story with the glamour of
the imagination. Morgan’s fairy palace acquires, too, an added

** Very likely, a corruption of Nabusardan in the prose Tristan.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 259

interest, perhaps, by being transferred to the brilliant atmosphere
of the South and to so world-famous a mountain as Aetna.!’
26. Li Atres Perilloz (Li Atre Perillos) — i. e. The Perilous
Churchyard. Edited anonymously'* under the title, Der Gefahr-
volle Kirchof, in the Archiv fiir das Studisum der Neueren Sprachen,
XLIT, 185—212 (1868). 6667 lines.!® Author, unknown. Dia-

‘7 As Graf suggests in the above-mentioned essay, the Normans
were doubtless responsible for the connection of Aetna with Arthurian
traditions. Cp., further, on this subject I, 34, note 74, above. Manifestly,
however, this connection was of literary origin. It was, doubtless,
started by some noble reader of the romances in the latter part of the
twelfth century. Other heroes of mediaeval romance, such as Huon
of Bordeaux and Rainouart, had visited fairyland, and our author was,
doubtless, familiar with these instances, for he appears to have. had a
wide acquaintance with earlier romances. His hero’s end, however,
was, most likely, suggested by Arthur's. Griber, Joc. cit. has called
attention to the writer's borrowings from the chansons de geste in the
matter of nomenclature. As a matter of fact, a glance at E. Langlois’s
Table des Noms Propres de Toute Nature dans les Chansons de
Geste Imprimées, pp. 2211. (Paris, 1904), will show how common the
names of the hero and heroine (in variant forms) — especially the
former — are in works of that class.

7 According to Wasmuth, p. 5, the editor's name was Schirmer.
This editor imagined that the MS. from which he printed the romance
— MS. 1433, f. fr., Bibl. Nat. — was unique. G. Paris, however,
pointed out, p. 79, that the poem is preserved, also, in MS. 2168 of
the same collection and in the Chantilly MS. which contains the unique
copy of Libeaus, Descouneus, Fergus, etc. A fourth MS., now lost,
was listed in the old catalogues of the library of the French kings,
and a study of the relations of the extant MSS. shows that still others
must have once existed. Cp. Von Zingerle, p. 274. Of the extant
MSS. those in the Bibl. Nat. are closest to each other.

*® This is the number in the printed text. None of the extant
MSS. agree exactly in this regard. Von Zingerle, pp. 278ff., prints
an episode of 666 lines which occur just after line 3002 in MS. 1433
(and in this MS. alone). This episode, however, is worthless, and its
linguistic peculiarities prove that it is not by the author of the original
romance. —- Because of the frequency of “Reicher Reim” in ll. 2791
—5718, E. Freymond, Zs. f. rom. Ph., VI, 190, thought that they
were interpolated. He suggested, indeed, that the whole romance had
undergone redaction.

17*

Google

260 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

lect, Western Eure (Normandy). Date, Probably third quarter
of the fourteenth century.

G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 78ff., Theodor Wassmuth: Unier-
suchungen der Reime des altfranzdsischen Artusromans, Li Atre
Perillos. Bonn diss. 1905. Wolfram von Zingerle: “Zum alt-
franzésischen Artusromane, Li Atre Perillos,” Zs. f. frz. Spr. u.
Tttt.,. XXXVI, 274ff. (1910).

Whilst Arthur and his company are seated at the table, a
knight — later named Escanor de la Montaigne — rides into the
hall and carries off a damsel whom Arthur had recently appointed
boutillsere (female butler) and placed under Gawain’s protection.
Ae the intruder leaves the hall, he insolently announces the road
that he is going to take and challenges any one to follow him. —
Gawain decides, however, strangely enough, that he will wait until
the feast is over, before he will pursue the abductor. Arthur is so
upset by the incident that he thrusts a knife into a loaf of bread,
leans on it in revery, and breaks the knife, before he knows it.*
He next expresses his disappointment at Gawain’s conduct, and
Gawain replies that he had feared the king’s disapproval, if he
sprang up abruptly from the table. Gawain now begins the pur-
suit of Escanor and soon meets Kay’s horse without a rider, Kay,
himself, having been unhorsed in an attempt to rescue the bou-
tillsere. — In the course of the pursuit Gawain encounters three
girls and a youth, who were under the false impression that they
had seen him slain by three knights. These same knights, more-
over, had put out the youth’s eyes, because he had tried to help
the supposed Gawain. Gawain promises to punish the offenders
and proceeds on his way, without disclosing his identity. He comes
next to a castle where it is not the custom to admit any one after
sunset, but the lord of the castle, who is bringing venison home
from a hunt, offers to take Gawain in, if he will leave his horse
(Gringalet), outside. Gawain, however, is unwilling .to do this
and decides to spend the night in- the neighboring churchyard,

*° For this motif Cp. Pseudo-Wauchier, ll. 15892ff. and prose
Lancelot, II, 272ff. The former is probably our author’s source.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 261

despite the lord’s warnings. Furthermore, he obtains a promise
from the lord that, if Escanor comes to the castle, he will not
admit him but will require him to turn over the damsel he has
abducted to his (the lord’s) sister for the night.*! This promise the
lord of the castle fulfills. — In the perilous churchyard that night
a girl issues from a tomb and tells Gawain how her step-mother
had bereft her of her reason and how a devil had restored it to
her on condition that she should give herself up to him. Accord-
ingly, he was accustomed to shut her up in the tomb during the
day and visit her every night. Gawain fights this devil, strengthen-
ing himself from time to time by looking upon a cross in the
middle of the churchyard (as the girl had advised him), and, in
the end, cuts off his adversary’s head. After this adventure, Ga-
wain continues his pursuit of Escanor and overtakes him. FEscanor’s
strength increases with the sun?? — up to noon it is equal to that
of three knights — then it declines until compline (evening prayer).
All this Gawain learns from the girl of the churchyard — also,
that his (Gawain’s) mother, who possessed supernatural powers,
had predicted the achievements of her son and had urged him to
prowess — only, she had not mentioned Escanor, because of her
fear in regard to Gawain’s encounter with him. Nevertheless, Ga-
wain kills him. After Escanor’s death, it turns out that the girl
whom he had abducted was, in reality, his accomplice and had been
sent to Arthur’s court, so that he might provoke a quarrel with
Gawain. —-On returning to Carduel with the two girls, Gawain
comes upon another girl who is in great distress over the loss of
her sparrow-hawk. He sends his two companions back to Car-
duel and goes with the new girl in quest of her bird, which leads
them on and on deep into the forest. This girl’s lover, finding
her with Gawain, becomes jealous, seizes their horses, and leads
the animals away. His amie and Gawain are thus compelled to

*2 This motif is repeated later on in Gawain's pursuit of Escanor.

** As is well-known, this was originally the attribute of Gawain.
Cp. the examples in Bruce’s edition of the Mort Artu, pp. 287f. The
author of the present romance is doubtless responsible for its transfer
to Escanor.

Google

262 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

spend that night — a stormy one — in the woods together and
their relations on this occasion seem to prove that the lover's jeal-
ousy was not unnatural. The next day they obtain horses from
a knight — Raguidel de l’Angarde, as he is later named — in
exchange for the hawk, which, however, is taken merely as a pledge
that Gawain owes him a favor for the future. Gawain’s next en-
counter is with Espinogre, whose suit a girl had long rejected, but
finally accepts, with the proviso that he shall prove himself superior
to Gawain. Thinking that Gawain is dead, he agrees to this and
his lady-love permits him to lie with her. Immediately afterwards,
however, he deserts her. Gawain now vanquishes him and compels
him to go back to his amie. Contrary to his custom, Gawain will
not tell Espinogre his name — says that he has lost it and must
now go in search of it (i. ©. must do deeds, worthy of his name).

Asa matter of fact, Gawain, in this part of the romance, is often
called Cil sans non (the One without a Name). — In searching
for Gringalet, Gawain meets a knight — afterwards called Cadre —
who alternately laughs and cries. It turns out that the parents
of thie knight’s amie are about to force her into & marriage with
a rich man and that she has summoned her lover to come to her in
thie crisis. He laughs because he is to see her that day; he weeps
because he will never see her again thereafter. In any event, he
will have to fight twenty knights, before he can see her, and Gawain
and Espinogre resolve to aid him in this combat. — The girl whose
sparrow-hawk Gawain had caught and who had remained with
him ever since now becomes hungry and thirsty, and Gawain has
to force the young mistress of a neighboring castle to grant her
food and drink. This inhospitable lady, as it happens, was Ra-
guidel’s fiancée, and, on Raguidel’s requirmg Gawain to get pos-
session of her for him, in redemption of the pledge implied above,
Gawain does so. She is at first angry with Gawain (whose identity
she does not know), but when she discovers that the man to whom
he hands her over is her bethrothed, she begs his (Gawain’s) par-
don. During this affair, Codrovain, a brother of the lady of
the castle, rushes to his sister’s aid and is unhorsed by Gawain.
He is the jealous knight, the sparrow-hawk of whose amie Gawain

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 263

had recaptured and who had carried off Gringalet. Gawain now
recovers his steed and makes the knight forgive his amie. Codro-
vain’s brothers are also about to assail Gawain, but Codrovain ex-
plains the situation and they now all agree to go with Gawain and
assist Cadre against the twenty knights. They defeat these knights
and Cadre regains his sweetheart, after which Gawain continues
his “search for his name.’”’ — At the castle where he next
stops, his host, Tristan-qui-ne-rit, labors under the prevalent false
impression that Gawain is dead: A knight, he says, had recently
come to his castle, and, later on, two of this knight’s companions —
Li Orgellox Fae (The Proud One with Supernatural Powers) and
Goumeres — bearing Gawain’s dismembered body. According to
the report of these knights, they were courting two girls who had
already dedicated their love to Gawain and Perceval, respectively,
although they had never seen those heroes, and had finally extorted
from the girls a promise that they would accept them (Li Orgellox
Fae and Goumeres), in case they succeeded in overthrowing Ga-
wain and Perceval. The knights pretend to have slain Gawain
and Perceval and to be bringing the former’s remains now to the
castle. Their host believes them and enchases in gold the right
arm of the supposed Gawain, just as if it were a saint’s. Gawain
does not reveal his identity — nevertheless, he assures the lord
of the castle that Gawain is not dead. In the meanwhile, since
the girls in question deny that the dismembered corpse was Ga-
wain’s, their suitors offer to uphold the truth of their assertion
in combat against all comers. Espinogre overthrows Goumeres
and Gawain Li Orgellox Fae. The vanquished knights are taken
to court and Gawain, believing that he has accomplished enough
to have ‘“‘found his name” again, tells who he is. It now turns
out that the three girls of Gawain’s first adventure after leaving
court were identical with those whose love was sought by the two
vanquished knights and their companion and that these same
knights were responsible, also, for the blinding of the youth. In
response to Gawain’s upbraidings, Li Orgellox Fae, who possesses
supernatural powers, resuscitates at Tristan’s castle the slain knight

Google

264 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

(le cortois de Huberlant)*® whom he had palmed off as Gawain,
and later, in the forest where Gawain had met the three girls,
restores sight to the blinded youth. On their arrival at court,
Arthur wishes to take vengeance on all who had boasted that they
had slain Gawain, but Gawain tells the king of the covenant of
peace which he and these men had agreed on and the king foregoes
his wrath. The various knights now are united with their re-
spective amies and the romance concludes with a description of the
festivities on this occasion. |

The author of this romance has planned his work with more
forethought than is usual in this species of literature. For ex-
ample, the full circumstances of Gawain’s first adventure after
he has left the court (the adventure of the three girls and the
blinded youth) are not cleared up until the end of the poem. In his
effort to produce the impression of mystery, no other romancer,
moreover, has made such systematic use of the trick of holding
back the names of the characters until the end of the particular
episode in which they figure. The author's invention is above the
average and his narrative flows easily, but perhaps the numerous
descriptions of mediaeval hospitality which the poem contains, con-
stitute, after all, its most interesting feature.*

27. Claris et Laris. Edited from the unique MS. 1447 (fonds
fr., Bibl. Nat.) by Johann Alton: [4 Romans de Claris et Laris,
Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, CLXIX (Ti-
bingen, 1884). 30369 hnes. Author, an unknown minstrel. Dia-
lect, Isle-de-France (Picard border). Date (begun), 1268.

** On the homeward journey Gawaih has one of his innumerable
fights with friends, in which the combatants are unaware of each
other’s identity. This time his adversary, a black knight, turns out to
be Li Lais Hardis, who is engaged in a friendly quest for him.

*“ k. Brugger, H. Morf-Festschrift, p. 70, calls attention to the
custom of the author of this romance of drawing characters from other
romances — Espinogre from Meraugis, Raguidel from the Vengeance
Raguidel, and Codrovain from Durmart — and ascribing to them
new adventures. JI see no ground for the same scholar’s view that
“Guiot's Perceval’ was a source of the present romance. Cp. Zs. f.
frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXII", 131, note 13.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 265

G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 124ff., Grober, II, 788f. Martin
Klose, Der Roman von Claris und Laris in seenen Beziehungen zur
altfranzisischen Artusetk des XII. und XIII. Jahrhunderts: Bei-
hefte zur Zs. f. rom. Ph., No. 68 (Halle, 1916).

The story of this tedions romance 1s as follows:

Claris was the son of a duke (presumably French), his friend,
Laris, was the son of the King of Germany. Laris’s sister —
called variously in the poem, Lidoine, Ydoyne, Lidaine — had
married Ladon(t), an aged king of Gascony, although she, herself,
is young. Claris, who is in this king’s service, falls in love with
her. After being knighted, the friends go forth on adventures.
They first overcome six robber knights, for whom a dwarf acts
asa decoy, and deliver Yvain—then, with Yvain’s assistance, dispose
of a band of thirty robbers in an adjacent forest. — After this,
Claris is almost drowned, being in such a profound revery over
his ladylove, that he does not observe that his horse is taking him
into the river. — The companions next bring relief to a lady,
who is besieged by King Nador, and assist her in resisting the
siege (which is described at great length). — In the end, Claris
and Laris have a combat d@ quatre with Nador and his nephew,
Daton. The latter are vanquished and agree to give up the siege. —
The friends now liberate a number of knights, who are kept at
hard labor by two brutal scoundrels — and shortly thereafter they
perform the same service for Gawain and his amie, who had been
overpowered by four knights. In the course of this affair the
two knights, being temporarily separated, are so fearful for each
other’s safety that they swoon. They next aid Carados, who had
foolishly offered to settle his claim to his lady-love as against a ri-
‘val — Ladas de la Rochele — by a combat in which he should
have two men to help him and Ladas eight. The smaller number,
however, were victorious. — They now come to the forest of Broce-
liande, a list of whose marvels is posted at the point where they
enter it. They penetrate into the Castle Perilous, making their
way past a, tower that burned perpetually, through doors that are
guarded by wild beasts, giants, etc., and they overcome the lord
of the place, who is a great sorcerer. Morgan le Fay, Arthur’s

Google

266 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

sister, next has them conducted to her enchanted palace — they
don’t know where they are going — and there proffers them all
sensual delights, but avers that they will never be able to leave
the place. In the night Laris overhears his friend weeping, and,
on pressing him, learns that he is bemoaning’ the hopelessness of
his love for Ydoine, but Laris comforts him by promising to help
him to win his sister’s favor. After this, Madoine, one of Morgan’s
fairies, has an amour with Laris and betrays to him the means
of escaping from the enchanted palace. Having accomplished this,
the friends go to the Roche Perdue (Lost Rock), on top of which
there was a castle, built by Merlin, and vanquish the knights
of Matidas, who is lord of this castle. Assailed by wild beasts and
in the midst of a great storm, they journey on through the forest
until they come upon the castle of an old knight, who informa
them that King Thoas nearby is unjustly holding captive Kings
Loth, Marc, and Baudemagu, and the Duke of Montagu. After
freeing these men, the friends continue their journey until they
reach Arthur's court at Cardigan.

The king entertains them handsomely and issues the com-
mand that they shall be treated with honor wherever they go.
It does not suit the young men, however, to be constant objects
of attention. So they obtain from a hermit arms that belonged
to Kay and Gales li Chauz, for whom they are mistaken in a
tournament the next day, and again when they deliver Brandaliz
from Li Rous de la Gaudine (The Red one of the Forest), Laris
slaying the latter. They next kill a nest (so to speak) of eight
dragons. — Thereus, emperor of Rome, demands tribute of Arthur,
who refuses it. On learning from Brandaliz that Claris and Laris
are at his castle, Arthur and his queen ride thither, and solicit
their aid in the war. The friends gladly consent. In connection
with the account of the battle that follows we have long lists of the
knights that fought under the banners of Thereus and Arthur,
respectively. Arthur, of course, wins. Immediately afterwards the
companions have to return to Gascony, for the King of Spain,
who wishes to get possession of Ladon’s wife, is besieging him in
Toulouse. Claris and Laris, however, with Gawain, Yvain, and

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Biblsography 267

other Arthurian knights, effect the relief of the town and drive
away the besieger and his forces. The queen now visits Claris,
who had been wounded in the battle, and he makes love to her.
When she rebukes him, he swoons and everybody thinks that
he is dead, but, on Laris’s advice, she kisses him and makes him
well again. — The two friende now start for Britain with Gawain,
etc. One night, en route, however, Madoine the fay, who is preg-
nant by Laris, seizes him, whilst he is asleep, and carries him to
Morgan’s fairy palace. In the meanwhile, Claris, searching for
his friend, rescues a girl who is about to be ravished by Li Or-
guilleus de la Gaudine (The Proud One of the Forest), vanquishes
two knights at a bridge, and, owing to the name of Our Lord on
his sword, is able to deliver a girl from the power of the devil
who was in love with hor. Next follow, evidently, in imitation
of the prose Lancelot, utterly commonplace adventures — two
each — of Gawain, Yvain, Gaheriet, Brandaliz, Sagremor, Li Laiz
Hardie, and — one, each — of Lucan, Kay, Bedivere and Agra-
vain. The adventures of Yvain, Lucan and Kay end in their im-
prisonment, the first two in Thoas’s castle, the third in Madoine’s
palace. — Claris, in quest of Laris, rescues a young girl from
a hateful marriage with Bilas, an old duke, and, as the most
loyal of knights, delivers Li Laiz Hardis and others from the
enchantment of a singer. — Li Laiz Hardis next frees a lady
from a dragon which has taken possession of her castle. — By
the help of a vilain, Claris penetrates to the room in Morgan’s
palace where Laris is incurcerated. Along with Kay and the well-
disposed vilain, they escape from the palace and come to Thoas’s
castle, where they liberate Yvain and Lucan, who, with Kay, return
to Camelot. — Gawain is treacherously entrapped in a castle, but
kills the owner and puts on his armor in which disguise he es-
capes. Gaheries and Brandeliz — the latter after an adventure
with an old hag and her deformed lover — seek hospitality at
Thoas’s castle and are cast by him into dungeons. Claris and Laris,
however, seize Thoas in the forest and after compelling him to
set free Gaheries and Brandalis, despatch him to Arthur’s court. —
Sagremor’s horse having been killed by a boar, he gets into an

Google

268 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

enchanted boat, with no one in it, and is brought to a deserted city,
follows the voice of a girl who is singing a song, fights a knight,
and is about to be attacked by other knights, when the girl pro-
tects him. Nevertheless, he is thrown into prison. — Claris and
Laris have an encounter with Bedivere and a knight who has been
deprived of his inheritance by his brother. When Bedivere re-
cognizes them and they recognize him, they stop the fight and all
four go against tho unjust brother, who, after a combat, how-
ever, is reconciled to the rest. They next come to the castle where
Sagremor is a captive, and in thoir honor, the lord of the castle
liberates his prisoner. — Li Laiz Hardis attacks an envious knight
for insulting language about the Round Table, but is overpowered,
when a friend of his adversary joins in the combat, and is imprison-
ed. Claris and Laris, however, soon deliver him. — At Pentecost,
Arthur holds a tournament to draw Claris and Laris out of their
_concealment. Gawain, Claris, and Laris resolve to attend it, but
disguised in black arms (then, the sign of the first year of knight-
hood). They take sides against Arthur's men and vanquish them.
Arthur’s mortification, however, is relieved, when he hears who
the victors are. Laris, having been wounded in the jousts, is at-
tended by Marine, Yvain’s sister, and becomes enamored of her. —
Ladon dies and Savari(s), the king of Spain, invades Gascony, and
by the treachery of certain noblemen, gets hold of the queen,
Idoine, and has her shut up in Montjardin on the Spanish border.
Claris and Laris, however, assisted by Gawain and others, come
to the rescue, defeat Savari’s host, kill him, and seize Montjardin,
save the castle, but are at once themselves surrounded by a Spanish
army. Lucan is despatched to Arthur for help. The king ans-
wers the appeal, comes with an army, and defeats the Spaniards
and frees Ydoine, who is now married to Claris. Claris soon joins
Arthur, however, and participates in the siege of Luiserne, which
the Spaniards are finally forced to surrender. The whole land
now submits to Claris and he is crowned king. Arthur next goes
back to Britain and he is quickly followed by Claris and Laris,
because the latter wishes to press his suit with Marine. Ydoine
insists on accompanying them and leaves her infant child in charge

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 269

of nurses. On their way through Gascony, a lustful knight, at
whose castle they stop and who requires a new bed-fellow every
night, first failing in an effort to seduce Ydoine, comes to her
chamber at night to outrage her. Claris and Laris kill him and
many of his followers, and the next morning endeavor to escape
from the castle, but are driven back into it by the dead man’s
vassals — only Laris is left outside. Whilst wandering about
disconsolate, Laris meets with Karados Brief-Bras and Kador.

These kings and their men return with him and rescue his sister
and her husband. Proceeding on their journey, they repel an attack
which Lidas’s mother causes to be made on them, cross success-
fully a river in a boat which, according to an inscription, will bear
only perfectly loyal persons. When Ydoine, however, before land-
ing, boasts of this as a proof that she has never caused her hus-
band any trouble, she suddenly finds herself up to her breast in
water. — When they first reach Camelot (Kamaalot), they are
welcomed by Arthur and Guinevere and the rest, but Marine’s ab-
sence makes Laris ill with disappointment. His case is even worse,
when, on Ascension Day, as Arthur is holding court at Caerleon,
news comes that Tallas of Denmark is besieging Urien with the
purpose of forcing him to give him (Tallas) his daughter in marri-
age. Indeed, nothing can revive Laris from his swoon, until his
sister, pretending to be Marine, bestows on him a kiss. Yvain,
Laris, etc., now ride away to rescue Urien and Marine, but whilst
they are on the way, Madoine almost breaks up the expedition by
dressing up different people te represent Loth (Gawain’s father)
as dead, Urien as mortally wounded, and Ydoine as pursued by two
knights, her purpose being to draw away Gawain, Yvain, and
Claris, respectively, from the party. In this way, she is able
_to abduct Laris. Some of the knights whom she employs in this
affair, however, later reveal the plot to Claris and he is able to
rescue Laris. — Gawain, wandering in search of the men who
were apparently carrying Loth’s corpse, delivers from captivity
certain knights. Yvain pursues the man who impersonated his
father and had stolen his (Yvain’s) steed — at the instance of
a hermit, however, is reconciled to him, on learning that fairies had

Google

270 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

compelled him to play thie role. Yvain, by making the sign of
the cross, delivers a castle from a devil to whom its inhabitants
had been paying human tribute. — Claris and Laris overcome
and capture Moderas, who is trying to force a knight to sur-
render his daughter to him — make themselves at home in Olim-
piaus’s castle, during the absence of its master and his vassals,
and, on the latter’s return, escape, after a severe combat. Gawain
overtakes them at a forester’s house and learns from them that
Loth is not dead. They now rescue Yvain, from some of Urien’s
enemies. All four knights and their followers after this reach
Urien’s city. In the battle that ensues Laris overthrows Tallas
in the presence of Marine, but is later, himself, knocked down in
the throng, whereupon his lady-love, thinking that he is dead,
falls into a deep swoon. — After Claris, Laris and their friends
have broken through the encircling hoet and joined Urien in the
city, the latter, in good faith, reporte that his daughter is dead,
but Claris, suspecting the truth, resuscitates her by pretending
that he is Laris and kissing her — the exact counterpart of his
wife’s trick on Larig. Laris is now called in and in the pre-
sence of Claris, he and Marine are formally betrothed. Laris
challenges Tallas to a personal combat and unhorses him, but the
fighting becomes general, until finally Urien’s supporters re-enter
the city. At first, Marine will not speak to her lover, because
he had issued the above-mentioned challenge, without asking her
consent. Arthur now marches with his army to Urien’s help. In
the battle that follows, Laris is missing (really is taken prisoner),
which fills Marine with despair, but thirty of Arthur's knights
go in quest of him. Arthur says that they must all meet at Clavent
on the Danish border a month hence. Claris and Gawain over-
come knights (the second of them a robber), Yvain avenges four
girls, whose lovers have been slain by two brothers. These brothers,
in turn, were each endeavoring to win their widowed sister-in-
law’s hand, the condition of success being that her new husband
should have avenged the death of the first. — Sagremor vanquishes
a knight, to whom, nevertheless, his lady-love remains loyal. Agra-
vain wine the prize (a hawk) in a tourney, but is imprisoned in

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 271

a Danish castle. — Gaheries delivers a girl whom her jealous lover,
on account of her supposed unchastity, kept immersed up to the
waist in a cold spring, after which she and this lover are recon-
ciled. — Guerrehes rescues a girl from a forced marriage, but will
not, himself, wed her until he has discovered Laris. A valet, how-
ever, soon betrays him into the hands of Tallas, who imprisons
him, with Laris. — Whilst Brandaliz, on his quest, is sleeping
in the forest one night by the fire of an old man (really Merlin),
@ voice upbraids him for not consulting Merlin as to Laris’s where-
abouts and adds that he will not see Laris until he has been a pri-
soner, himself, for two months and Laris, by Merlin’s counsel,
delivers him. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, he becomes a pri-
soner, whilst trying to free a lady from the oppression of four
vilasns. — Karados kills a giant who is ravaging a district, but
later becomes a prisoner in the same prison as Agravain. — After
overcoming the lord of a castle which could only be reached by a
bridge which was made of a magnet, Li Laiz Hardis winds up in
the same prison as the two questers just named. — Claris comes
to Merlin’s fire and asks him where Laris is captive. Merlin tells
bim that Laris is in Denmark — tells him, moreover, how he
must first liberate the imprisoned questers and adds directions as
to how he is to deliver Laris, last of all, from his dungeon. —

He first frees Brandaliz. After having rescued a knight from
four knights who were about to put out his eyes, Lucan is, him-
self, imprisoned with Agravain, etc. — Kay, on his way to Den-
mark, robs a squire of his master’s steed. The master unhorses
him and recovers the steed. Kay spends the night at an abbey,
represents that a band of fourteen robbers had deprived him of
his steed, receives another from the monks, but is afterwards thrown
into the same prison as Lucan. Bedivere, too, is about to be
imprisoned, when he is rescued by Claris and Brandalis. — Gales
li Chaus meets a girl, who is carrying the head of her slain lover. —
He kills the slayer and the girl ties the head of her dead lover’s
enemy to her horse’s tail and rides away to her home, accom-
panied by Gales. Gales, however, is soon cast into the same pri-
son as Lucan, etc. — Mordred is about to rape a girl, when her

Google

272 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

two brothers intervene and take him captive. Gawain, however,
arrives opportunely and saves him. Gawain chides Mordred for
his purposed outrage, after which there is a general reconciliation.
The next day Gawain and Mordred meet Claris, Brandalis and
Bedivere. — Yder puts up in an apparently empty castle, but in the
night hears a lady lamenting. His arms are stolen from him the
same night. When he meets Claris, etc., the following day, Mord-
red mocks at him, because of his unfurnished condition, and he
retorts that Mordred would never dare to attempt to recover them,
Mordred accepts the challenge, rides off to the castle, but has
the same experience as Yder — only he loses his steed, in addition.

Claris now tries his luck — does not lay aside his arms and
lie down by his steed, but keeps awake. The woful lady comes
in and tells him that he has done right, for a magician has taken
possession of the castle and the bed in which Yder and Mordred
lay was enchanted, so that any one who occupied it fell at once
into a profound slumber. Claris next vanquishes the magician,
recovers his friends’ belongings, and binds over the vanquished
man never to enter the castle agam. — The Black Knight is
entertained at a castle, and, as champion of its lord, defeats a
knight named Tantalis. He is, himeclf, however, captured by
Tallas and imprisoned with Laris and Guerrehes. — A girl who
is betrayed to a miller by her father, in anger, devotes herself
and her father to the devil, who at once takos possession of the
mill. Kador tries this adventure, but fails ignominiously. — So,
too, Mordred, but the devil evacuates the premises, as soon as
Claris appears. — The King of the Golden Circlet strays into
the’ deserted city, where Gaheriet is imprisoned, and suffers the
same fate. An inscription there declares that they will be kept
fasting until ‘‘the true companion” (Claris) arrives and delivers
them. — The King of Northumberland and Sagremor come to the
castle of a knight, who is really a vassal of the former, although
none of the parties know it. Sagremor vanquishes this lord’s enemy,
who has already killed two of his sons, and then reconciles the
adversaries. They ride on to the deserted city where Gaheriet
is imprisoned. Olaris and his companions, also, soon arrive in this

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 273

city. The spell that rested on the city was due to the fact that
@ great prelate had summoned its lord to confess himself and fast,
but he had refused. In punishment therefor the lord is shut up
im a subterranean vault. Receiving countless blows from invisible
hands, Gawain and Claris rescue the repentant lord from this vault
and undo the spell. After this, Claris and his eleven companions
come to the hermitage where Merlin had commanded him to wait
until the number grew to fifteen before he entered Denmark. —
Elidus, King of Ireland, stops at the castle of a lady who falls in
love with him, and on hearing him say that he had never loved
but one woman, comes to his room in the night to inquire who
was this woman; on learning that it is she, she spends the remainder
of the night with him. — Galegantin punishes a knight for casting
off a faithful dwarf, in favor of a false one, who had slandered his
companion. — Kalogrenant comes to a bespelled castle where every
one becomes like the thing he first sees on entering it. He first
sees a girl, consequently he becomes like a girl. The next day
he rides on to the Danish castle where Agravain is in prison, then
to Tallas’ castle where Laris is a captive, then, to the hermitage
where Claris and his company are. Since he looks like a girl,
the Danes do not molest. him. On approaching the hermitage,
however, Mordred, laboring under the same delusion as the rest,
tries to rape him, but is worsted in the struggle and loses his
horse to Kalogrenant, who now joins Claris, etc., tells them about
Mordred and changes to male attire. — Erec, by a successful joust
wins a crown and frees captives. — Cliges slays an insolent vilain
and his wife, the latter being also a fierce participant in the
combat. — Dodinel was a wag and by pleasantries avoids com-
bats in his wanderings and palms himself off on Tallas as a
minstrel. — Aglu (Eglu) Desvaus champions successfully the cause
of certain nuns against a knight, who wishes to rob the convent
of its property. — Tor, son of Ares, after vanquishing a knight
who had spoken of Laris in a derogatory manner and protecting
a girl against a dishonest uncle, who had tried to appropriate her
estate to himself, is imprisoned with Agravain, etc. — The number
of his company having grown to fifteen — the number required

Hefperia, Exrgdngungsreige: 9. 18

Google

274 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

by Merlin’s prophecy — Claris now moves against Tallas. They
first deliver Agravain and his nine fellow-prisoners. At this castle
they, also, clothe themselves as hermits (another of Merlin’s require-
ments). They have moreover, colored their visages, so that they
are not recognizable. — Li Biaus Mauves, in his quest for Laris,
Jousts successively with three women disguised as knights and un-
horses all three. He, too, later falls into Laris’s prison. — Bretiaus
overcomes a knight who wrongly accuses him of having killed
his wolf. He, also, comes to the castle where Laris is incarcerated.

Claris, Gawain, etc., disguised as hermits are admitted into
Tallas’s castle, seize it, and free Larie, etc. — Tallas takes flight,
collects an army and besieges the castle. Moreover, his forces are
augmented by those of his father, Saladin, and of Baraton, king
of Russia. Madras (a squire) brings Arthur (in Britain) news
of the predicament of Claris and his companions, whereupon the
king, with a great host, marches to their rescue. Tallas’s army
is destroyed and he, himself, killed by Arthur. Arthur now con-
sents to the marriage of Laris with Marine, and Yvain and Gawain
go and fetch her to the wedding. Before they arrive, however,
Madoine had made a last effort to prevent the marriage — having
persuaded Marine by a trick that her lover was dead. Moreover,
as the three are on their way back to Arthur’s host, the fay gets
them all into her power and takes them to her enchanted valley in
the forest of Broceliande. She next goes to Laris, tells him where
Marine is, and declares that he will never see her (Marine) again,
unless he goes to this valley. He seizes her, however, and does
not release her, until she has promised to set free her captives.
She does this and they all come to where Arthur is encamped.
The wedding was now celebrated and on the following day Arthur
crowns Laris king of Denmark and then takes him and his bride
first to Britain and next to Cologne where Laris’s father, Henry,
was emperor. The city however, was invested by Saris, King of
Hungary, when Arthur and the rest arrive. Laris kills Saris and
the Hungarians flee. Henry resigns his crown in favor of his
son and all the characters now go to Cardigan with Arthur. Claris

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 275

and Laris and their wives spend the winter there, but the next
year move on to Gascony.

Both the length and structure of this mediocre and intermin-
able poem were determined, in the main, by the prose romances —
especially the Lancelot. The author adopts from that work the
quest-form: A number of knights set out in search of another
knight and the adventures of each are related. Inasmuch as each
set of adventures is practically independent of the rest, the author
can lengthen out his work at pleasure by simply adding to the
number of questing knights or adventurers. Claris is more promi-
nent in the first half of the romance, Laris in the second. Athis
and Prophilias, Lancelot and Galehaut, served, doubtless, as models
to this new exemplification of the friendship motif. The author
uses all of Chrétien’s romances, all the continuations of that writer's
Perceval, and all the principal romances of Chrétien's successors.
See Klose’s detailed study of the subject. In point of morals, the
poem is comparatively pure: it contains only two rather sensual
passages, and both of these are brief.

28. Sone de Nausay. For the Holy Grail episodes in this
romance, which do not, properly speaking, belong to the Ar-
thurian cycle, see above.

29. Escanor. Only edition, Der Roman von Escanor von
Gerard von Amiens, herausgegeben von Dr. H. Michelant. Biblio-
thek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, No. 178 (Tibingen,
1886). 25936 lines are preserved, but a leaf, containing the be-
ginning of the poem, is lost, and there are lacunae, also, after
1. 8485 (1200 lines here wanting according to Michelant, 950
according to G. Parie) and after 1. 9205 (according to G. Paris,
two leaves are here missing). Author, Gerard of Amiens, Dialect,
Picard. Date, about 1280.%

** We have three poems by Gerard: 1. Escanor, 2. Meliacin,
8. Charlemagne. G. Paris, op. cit..pp. 1511, dates them, respectively,
1280, 1286, 1290. Melacin is similar to Hscanor in the general
character of its incidents, but is not connected with the Arthurian
cycle. For an analysis of it, see G. Paris, op. cit., pp. 171 ff.
18*

Google

276 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

HLF, XIII, 138ff., G. Paris, ibtd., XX XI, 151—205 (1893),
Grodber, II, I, 786f.?¢

Cador,?7 King of Northumberland, wants to marry his
daughter, Andrivete (the heroine of the poem), to the best knight
of the time, and in order to determine who this is, proclaims
a tournament at Banbore (Bamborough), which many of Arthur's
knights attend — among them Kay, who has a bitter tongue in
‘Escanor, as in the other romances, but is here represented as a
valiant and skilful knight, as he is not elsewhere in the French
romances. On his way to the tournament Kay has encounters with
Mordred and Dynadant (not knowing their identity) over the
former’s amie. On relating these affairs at Arthur’s court (at
Caerleon) afterwards, Dinadan (Dynadan) speaks with characteris-
tic cynicism of women.

The inhabitants of Brittany want Gawain to rule over them,
so he goes to that country with Gifflet as a companion, and restores
tranquillity ‘in the land. An enchantress, however, who is still
hostile to him, lures him, by means of a hawk (ostoir), into an
ambush in the depths of a forest, but the gift by which his strength
increased up to midday and did not begin declining until after the
ninth hour of the day stood Gawain in good stead, so that he
overcame the ambush party, and the enchantress begged his pardon
and gave him the bird, although she predicted that the devils
would carry it off in two months. — Already, before the tournament
was held, Kay had become deeply enamored of Andrivete and not
much later she began to reciprocate his love. Among the knights

** For many valuable corrections to Michelant’s edition, cp., too,
A. Tobler, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XI, 421ff. — In his synopsis of the
romance, (. Paris, Joc. cit., first analyses the story of Kay (Keu) and
Andrivete and then (separately) that of Escanor.

*’ The poet pretends, ll. 61ff. that Eleanor told him the story
of his romance. This is probably a mere imitation of Chrétien's in-
troduction to his Lancelot, and there can be no reasonable doubt that
this story was of his own invention. It accords with this and not
with his statement concerning his patroness that we find all through
the work the usual appeal of the romancers to an imaginary escrié
as his authority.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliographg 277

who took part in the jousts was the character who gives his title
to the poem, Li Biauz Escanor de la Blanche Montaigne, nephew
to Escanor le Grant — the latter an inveterate enemy of Gawain’s.
Both he and Kay were injured in the fighting. Kay, nevertheless,
bore himself so gallantly in the affair that, in the opinion of some,
he deserved the princess above all the other contestants. — After
the jousters have dispersed, because of his wounds, Kay lingers
on in Northumberland. He provokes Andrivete, however, by his
bashfulness about declaring his love to her. Cador, would have
gladly accepted Kay as his son-in-law — the Northumbrians, too,
generally favor Kay —, but his brother, Ayglin, tries to thwart
the plan, because he wishes to succeed Cador, himself. Finally,
much to Andrivete’s chagrin, Kay returns to Arthur's court, with-
out having made the expected declaration. — At Whitsuntide a
knight appears at Arthur’s court and accuses Gawain of murdering
his cousin, and since Gawain is still absent, Lancelot, Yvain, ete.,
offer themselves as champions to defend him against the charge.
It is finally decided, however, that after forty days Gawain must
return and defend his own cause. The accuser — really Escanor
the Beautiful — then slips away without disclosing his name. —
After a while, Gawain and Gifflet return, and the former tells
the story of the ostoir (which he presents to the queen). Guinevere,
who loved Gawain better than she did any one, save her spouse,
invites the two knights to her chamber. On the way thither, Gawain
meets Li Biaus Descouneus (i. e. his natural son, Guinglain) and
learns his (Guinglain’s) name now for the first time. The pro-
spect of having to fight an adversary of whom he knows nothing
whatever so worries Gawain that the people begin to fear that the
accusation was wellgrounded. Indeed, towards the end, Arthur
has to exhort him, for his friends’ sake, not to make a spectacle
of himself. — Before the expiration of the forty days, Gifflet’s
brother, Galentivet — a mere squire — having procured the rustiest
and meanest equipment possible, goes forth to anticipate Gawain
in combating the latter’s accuser. On the road he is abashed by
the successive bands of knights, damscls and ladies (the heads
of the last-named being bedecked with green garlands). All, ex-

Google

278 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

cept the first band, as it turns out, belong to Escanor the Beautiful,
whom (together with his lady-love) they extol to the skies. Finally
the squire meets Escanor and his amie walking under a canopy
of golden cloth and singing of love, like the preceding bands. The
lines which are missing at this point must have told of an encounter
between Galentivet and Escanor, in which the latter was overthrown
and left for dead. The company bemoan their loss and charge Gawain
with responsibility for the slaying of their lord, who, as they
make known, was Gawain’s accuser, in the first instance, and who
was coming to Caerleon to fight with Gawain, according to his
promise. Arthur has an honest investigation of the affair made,
but without result. Gawain is deeply mortified that he should
be the object of such suspicions, but Gifflet lets nobody into the
secret of who was the real slayer. Kay seta out again for Nor-
_ thumberland and has, on the way, two commonplace adventures.
Immediately after this there is another brief lacuna, in which
the death of Cador, king of Northumberland, must have been told.
Kay next learns the attempts of Andrivete’s uncle, Ayglin, to
supplant his niece in the succession and to marry her to a man of
low birth. Kay stops at the castle of Yonet Alain, who manages
to bring about a meeting of his guest and Andrivete there in which
Kay tells his sweetheart that he will protect her, and she, on
her part, avers that she will make him lord of the land. Kay,
likewise, assures Yonet that he desires to marry Andrivete. He
now rejoins Arthur’s court and obtains the promise of the king
and his knights that they will help him against Ayglin. In the
meanwhile, by persuading Andrivete’s relatives that she had been
seduced by Kay and by other falsehoods, equally groundless, Ayglin
had got possession of her person and was going to marry her off
to a worthless man, but Yonet enables her to escape to Banbore,
to which city her uncle then lays siege. Kay is preparing to start
for Banborc, when he receives forged letters that purport to be
from Yonet, but are really from Ayglin, stating that Andrivete
had already married a nobody. In the meanwhile, however, Andri-
vete had fled from Banborc and was on her way to Caerleon,
under the escort of Espinogre, whom she had come across by chance.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 279

Shortly thereafter they meet Dinadan with whom Andrivete has a.
tart exchange of words, because of the contempt which he ex-
preeses for fighting and women. Among other things, not being
aware of her identity, he observes that her sharpness of tongue
would make her a suitable partie for Kay, whose own lady-love
in Northumberland, he says, had recently betrayed him. Just
then Hector appears on the scene and unhorses both Espinogre and
Dinadan, which gives the latter occasion for some further very
sensible remarks on the folly of this eternal fighting. Duinadan,
moreover, 1s now eager to get rid of Andrivete, but out of perver-
sity, she continues to stick to him. At last, however, he effects
his escape, and she is so ill from vexation at his success that she
had to remain two weeks at a forester’s. — By this time a vallet,
~whom Kay has sent to Banborc to investigate the report about his
sweetheart, returns and states his conviction that the rumor 1s false.

Gawain and Gifflet now go to test the adventures of the perron
Merlin, and, although they performed some notable exploits there,
Gifflet is captured by followers of Escanor the Big, Gawain’s old
enemy. The history of the enmity of these two was as follows:
This Escanor’s father was a cruel giant and his mother a malicious
sorceress. Gawain and Escanor were born in the same hour. As
the latter was coming into the world, a cousin of his mother’s who
was also skilled in necromancy, gained knowledge, through her art,
of Gawain’s simultaneous birth and also, of the qualities which
the two children were destined, respectively, to develop: Gawain
was to be proud and mighty, Escanor strong, but cruel. Escanor’s
mother, when he is grown up, tells him of Gawain’s prowess,
which excites his jealousy — consequently, he seeks a combat with
Gawain. Gawain overthrows him and could have killed him but
spares him from courtesy. So mortified was the vanquished man
by this discomfiture that he lay in bed a whole year, and he now
seizes upon this affair of his nephew, Escanor the Beautiful

** Escanor the Beautiful had married a rich princess, whose
father was dead, and at the wedding had vowed that he would go to
Britain and challenge the best knight there. The elder Escanor dis-
approved of his nephew's purpose and endeavored to make him promise

Google

280 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

(baptized Escanor the Prophet after his father, Brun the Prophet),
as an excuse for avenging himself on Gawain. The younger Es-
canor, by this time, however, had recovered from the wound,, which
he had received in his encounter with Gifflet’s brother. — Gawain,
after recovering from his wounds, goes, accompanied by Gaheries,
Kay, Lancelot, eto., in quest of Gifflet, who is in prison at
Traverses. Andrivete — who keeps herself concealed from Kay,
until her good name is cleared — knows Gifflet’s whereabouts
and offers to guide Gawain, thither, on condition that he will be
her champion, when she needs him. As a matter of fact, the
person who had charge of Gifflet at Traverses was a cousin of
Andrivete’s — a queen — and she had fallen in love with her
prisoner, who reciprocated her passion. There was, no question,
therefore, of his not being treated well. Andrivete goes to her
cousin’s castle and later, returning to report to Gawain, finds Arthur
and his followers in Norgales. — They had become entangled in
a neighboring forest filled with wild beasts, etc., but had finally
been hospitably received at the castle of Briant des Illes.*° This
Briant has a fairy, named Esclarmonde, as his amée, and she had
decorated the room occupied by Arthur in the most magnificent
manner, so that the king’s companions aver, that even the enchanter,

that he would, at least, not challenge Gawain. This enraged, however,
the young man and only rendered him more eager than ever to issue
this very challenge — of which we have heard above.

** In the list of the questing knights at this point we have
Percevaus (1. 14365) and Pellesvaus (1. 14389) enumerated as two
different knights. Both, of course, are mere variants of Perceval's
name. Similarly, ll. 18857f. For other examples of this phenomenon
in Arthurian romance, Cp. Bruce, MPh. XVI, 347f. (1918). G. Paris,
p. 168, suggests that Hector des Mares is similarly derived from Tor
(through an hypothetical Hector), fils d'Ares. He was led to this
conclusion, doubtless, by the observation that in Escanor Hector des
Mares is sometimes called “Hector li fix le roi Arez’” (ll. 4174, 5255,
14864) — and at least once (1. 4203), I might add, “fil le roi
d’Escossuatre”. This, however, is merely Gerard’s individual blunder.

*° To be sure, Briant does, in disguise, bring a false accusation
against Gawain out of mere envy of the latter's fame. He is suffi-
ciently chastised, however, when the latter unhorses him.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 281

Vergil, had never made anything so wonderful. — At Gawain’s
request, Andrivete goes back now to Traverses, to comfort Gifflet,
whilet Arthur gathers together his hosts to liberate him. The
population of Norgales — whose king was away in Sorelois —
and of the Isles which Briant ruled over were great raiders, so
that Arthur avoided their country — a boggy one — on his way
to Traverses, as much as he could, and they, on their side, were
afraid of him and treated him with an honor that angered the
absent king of Norgales.** — In the meanwhile, Andrivete, at
Traverses, observing her cousin’s weakness for Gifflet, had availed
herself of the same to find opportunities for heartening the cap-
tive. Among the barons who assembled under the banners of the
queen of Traverses, Briant des Illes counselled submission to Arthur,
but the two Escanors vehemently espoused the opposite view, owing
to their hatred of Gawain. Accordingly, when Yvain is sent by
Arthur to demand Gifflet’s release, the younger Escanor issues
a challenge to Gawain to fight a duel with him, which the barons
of his own side, however, prevent for the time being. The queen
of the besieged city is, all this while, bent on marrying Gifflet,
and, on that account, wishes to make peace with Arthur. Thera
follows a description of Gifflet, who, on his part, runs through
the whole gamut of a lover's hopes and fears — also, an address
to him by Love. Andrivete perceives the mutual passion of the
lovers, but continues to keep silent on the subject. — During the
siege, Kay’s messenger, who had been despatched a second time
to Northumberland, returns and exposes to his master the whole
plot of the forged letters. Kay, however, is still ignorant of Andri-
vete’s presence in Britain and is in despair about her. — In the
fighting around Troverses Gawain captures from the elder Es-
canor a valuable steed, named Gringalet, which had been pre-
sented to the younger Escanor by the fairy, Esclarmonde, and
which had been lent by him to his uncle. The captured animal at

** Whilst Arthur was laying siege to Traverses, says our author,
he would not let his men take anything from the inhabitants, without
paying for it — hence they became well — disposed towards him and
willingly furnish the greater part of his host with supplies.

Google

282 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

first will not eat, but a maiden, Felinete, offers Gawain to cure
him, provided Gawain should fulfill a boon for her. He consents,
and she, accordingly, plucks a magical piece of cloth out of the crea- -
ture’s ear which the younger Escanor had made his valet put
there whenever he was on a journey, in order to render unavailing
any one else’s possession of the steed. The favor which Felinete
had expected to ask from Gawain, in requital, was that he should
protect her relatives during the war, but what she actually asked
for was that he should stop his combat with the younger Escanor;
for this duel, after a long delay, had actually come off. Gawain,
although, like his opponent, badly wounded in this affair, will
not heed the girl’s request, until Arthur intervenes and compels
him to desist. Guifflet is now set free and Gawain wants to bring
about a marriage between him and the queen of Traverses. —

_ Andrivete will not disclose her presence with Arthur’s host to
Kay until she is convinced that he is sorry for having hearkened
to Ayglin’s calumnies concerning her. Pending the settlement of
this matter, she solicits Gawain’s aid in avenging her on her uncle.
Gawain consents to do so and gets her to agree that she will marry
her lover, provided Arthur will restore her to her inheritance. The |
queen of Traverses had been a little suspicious of Andrivete’s rela-
tions with Gifflet, but is now reassured. Arthur next declares that
he will back Andrivete’s claims to her inheritance and he teases
Kay about the slanders he has uttered in regard to his mistress,
to all of which Kay returns a bitter answer. Andrivete becomes
a vassal of Arthur’s. — Not long after this the two couples —
Gifflet and his lady-love, Kay and Andrivete — are brought to-
gether by Gawain and marriages are arranged between them. —
When the weddings have been celebrated, Arthur gets ready for
the expedition against Ayglin. — News of these preparations
disturb Ayglin greatly, but the people of Banborc are weary of
war — especially, as Andrivete has disappeared from their sight —
and they are about to deliver the town into Ayglin’s hands, when
Yonet arrests the ring-leaders. Nevertheless, he still has to appease
the discontent of the people, by promising that before an ap-
pointed date he will discover Andrivete’s whereabouts. Long before

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 283

the day in question, however, her messenger arrives and enlightens
him on this point. — In the sequel, it turned out that there was
to be no conflict between Arthur and Ayglin, for, under the pres-
sure of the Northumbrians, the latter had to surrender, and, after
some rough handling and a brief imprisonment, he confessed his
villainies and was pardoned. — The younger Escanor had gone
with Arthur to Northumberland, but news of his wife’s illness
compels him to return home. She dies, howéver, before he gets
back, and Gifflet uses this hour, in which grief has humbled the
young knight’s pride to inculcate upon him the lesson of self-
control. Escanor is so impressed by Gifflet’s words that he ab- —
dicates his throne, in favor of a cousin, and betakes himself to a
hermitage. He gets there just in time to see angels bearing away
the hermit’s soul. Soon afterwards, two neighboring hermits come
and bury their friend’s body in the grave that he himself had
prepared for this purpose. KEscanor now confesses to one of these
hermits and accepts his invitation to live with him. Before his
own death, on the second anniversary of his entering the hermitage,
he is rewarded with a vision of his wife, who had just been delivered
from purgatory. His own interment, at the hands of his fellow-
hermit, was attended by many wonders, the Virgin Mary being
visibly present, with numerous saints and angels. — When the
younger Escanor disappeared, the older Escanor, Gifflet, and his
wife were much grieved over the matter, and the first-named of
the three soon commenced a quest for his nephew. In the course
of this quest, he is joined by an abbot, who was, likewise, strongly
attached to the missing man. They come, at last, to the younger
Escanor’s grave, hold services there, and the abbot remains on
the spot thencefiorth as a hermit, so that a new head for his abbey
has to be chosen. Gifflet’s wife was so afflicted at the news of all
this that her husband reproved her for her excessive manifestations
of grief. At Gifflet’s suggestion and accompanied by the elder
Escanor, they now exhume the body of the dead man’s wife and
reinter it by his side. Moreover, Gifflet’s wife had a fine house
erected nearby, where, eventually, she, herself, died.

Escanor was written for Eleanor of Castile, wife of Edward I,

Google

284 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

King of England. The character who gives its title to the poem
is borrowed from L’ Atre Perillos. So, too, this character's enmity
with Gawain. G. Paris goes so far, indeed, as to speak of the
present romance as 8 sort of continuation of L’ Atre Perillos. The
poem, as Michelant and Paris have observed, consists of two re-
ally separate stories — the Escanor-Gawain and Kay-Andrivete
stories, respectively — which are connected with one another merely
by the part that Andrivete plays as the intermediary between
Gawain and Gifflet. The worst fault of the romance, however,
is unquestionably its prolixity, which is most objectionable, per-
haps, in the narratives of combats and in descriptions — e. g. of
the room occupied by Arthur in Briant’s castle. Long soliloquies
and dialogues, which, of course, do not appear in a mere analysis
of incidents, like the above, and yet which make up a large part
of the work, furnish, besides, equally pertinent illustrations of
this same weakness. On the other hand, Escanor has its merits:
its author possesses a pleasing facility of style and his romance
gives a faithful and varied reflection of mediaeval life. The chief
personages in the story may be, in the main, as Paris remarks,
the stock characters of the genre, such as the highborn maiden
in love, the traitor, the loyal vassal, eto., but in more than one
episode these figures become well individualized; — e. g. that of
Yonet (the loyal vassal) in the passage (ll. 23548ff.) where he holds
Banboro against the intrigues of Ayglin and the growing dis-
satisfaction of the masses. In the delineation of character, how-
ever, there is one capital failure to be registered against the author
— namely, Kay. It was a happy thought to represent Arthur's
seneschal, the scoffer and braggart, the chief comic figure of the
cycle, in the role of a lover. We all know the rich comedy which
Shakespeare extracted from a similar conceptivn.** It seems, how-
ever, that the comic possibilities of the situation never even sug-
gested themselves to Gerard. A slave, like his predecessors, to the
conventions of the amour courtois, he exploits his invention simply
to exemplify anew the power of love. Under this influence, Kay,

** That of Falstaff in the Merry Wives of Windsor.

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 285

accordingly, becomes a valiant knight, which contradicts the uni-
form tradition concerning the character in the romances, with no
corresponding gain. — Much more successful than Kay is the figure
of Dinadan — taken over from the prose Tristan** — whose cynical
disparagement of women and protests against fighting as the high-
est function of man constitute signs of a growing reaction from
the ideals of chivalry, in their more extravagant forms.

In addition to the above list of the metrical romances written
before 1300, we have the following works of the same genre written
after that date.

30. A romance which exists only in brief fragments in a MS.
of about 1325, and which is, in all probability, itself, approxi-
mately of the same date. It is in the dialect of Champagne and
by an unknown author. These fragments have been edited by
E. Langlois, as ‘‘Fragments d’un roman de la Table Ronde,” Mé-
langes offerts a M. Emile Picot, I, 383—-389 (2 vols., Paris, 1913).
Two kings, Ilas and Solvas, ride up before a king — doubtless,
Arthur — who is seated, and the former renounces, for himself
and his companions, their allegiance to the monarch. The king
addressed does not understand what it is all about and, conse-
quently, sits pensive. The barons, however, denounce the affair
as an outrage, and, on the advice of Urien, the king pursues Ilas,
etc. A fight is about to follow, but here the fragments end.*

** From the fact that Gerard does not represent Lancelot and
Guinevere as lovers in this poem, G. Paris has drawn the unwarranted
inference that he did not know the prose Lancelot. The names,
Claudas, Claudin, Sorelois, — to say nothing of Hector des Mares —
point, however, to a knowledge of that romance on the part of our
author. He probably ignored this famous story of a British queen's
adultery, no doubt, out of consideration for the particular British queen
whom he was addressing. There is, to be sure, some rather frank
and even coarse language in the poem, but such plain-spoken talk did
not offend the taste of the Middle Ages. On the other hand, the
conduct of the principal characters is, throughout, strictly moral.

The picture of Briant des Illes, as Paris remarks, is probably
based on the Chevalier as Deus Espres.

** Cp. the somewhat similar situation in the Vulgate Mort Artu,
p. 71 (Bruce’s edition) — also at the beginning of Yder.

Google

286 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

31. Méliador. Only edition, Méliador, par Jean Froissart:
roman comprenant les poésies lyriques de Wenceslas de Bohéme,
Duc de Luxembourg et de Brabant, publié, pour la premiére fois
par Auguste Longnon. 3 vols. Société des Anciens Textes Fran-
gais (Paris, 1895—1899). 30771 lines are extant, but the con-
clusion is missing. For a controversy on the subject of the date
of the poem cp. G. L. Kittredge, “Chaucer and Froissart (with
a discussion of the date of the Meliador,” Englische Studien,
XXVI, 321ff. (1899) and Longnon in his edition, ITI, 3638 ff.
Both scholars agree that there were two redacations of the poem.
Longnon dates, however, the first version before 1370, which is
disputed by Kittredge.

The heroine, Hermondine, is the daughter of Hermond, King
of Scotland, whose wife was a sister of Loth, lord of Montgries
in Northumberland. The hero is Meliador,®* son of Patris (Pa-
trick), king of Cornwall, and he is, likewise, a knight of Arthur's
court. Among the Arthurian knights that participate in the action,
Sagremor is the most important.% The whole technique of the
work ie that of the prose romances, but the stock characters of the
Arthurian cycle have little prominence in the story.®*’

** The name, as Longnon observes, I, p. LVIII, is, undoubtedly,
a modification of Mertadoc (Meriadeuc), which we have found in
older Arthurian romances.

** A peculiar feature of the romance is that one of its chief
characters, Camel (a rival of the hero), is represented as a somnambulist.

*? Gréber, I, I 790f. classifies the fragmentary Brun de la
Montaigne (3926 decasyllabic lines in /atsses) as an Arthurian ro-
mance, but its connection with the Arthurian cycle is of the slightest
kind. See Paul Meyer's edition of the poem for the Société des An-
eiens Textes Francais (Paris, 1875). At the commencement of the
story, the infant hero is taken to a spring haunted by fairies in the
forest of Bersillant (Broceliande), which is said to be a possession of
Arthur’s. There two of these supernatural ladies shower good gifts
upon him, but a third, who is in a bad humor, because she did not
have the first say in the matter, prophesies that he will suffer such
misfortunes in love that he will deserve the name of “restor de Tristram"
(1. 988) — i.e. New Tristan, and this name she at once confers
upon him. Just at the end of our fragment, moreover, the writer

Google

Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography 287

We have still further, one metrical romance of the Arthurian
cycle in Provengal, viz., Jaufre, published by Raynouard, Lexique
Roman, I, 48ff. (1836)** and analyzed HLF, XXII, 224ff. There
33 also a free translation of this poem by Mary Lafon: Les Aven-
tures du Chevalier Jaufre et de la Belle Brumissende traduites
par Mary Lafon (Paris, 1856), with illustrations by Gustave Doré.
11160 lines. Date, between 1222 and 1232. A. Stimming, ‘Der
Verfasser des Roman de Jaufre” Zs. f. rom. Ph., XII, 323ff.
G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 215ff., Grdber, Band II, Abteilung 2, 8f.*9

The romance opens with the common motif of Arthur’s waiting
for an adventure before eating. The adventure, however, does not
occur until he has ridden out into the forest of Broceliande, where
one of his knights, endowed with magical powers, in the form
of a strange beast, carries him off and drops him over a cliff.
Nevertheless, his men catch him in cloths, so that he is not hurt.
The same magician plays Arthur a similar trick near the end of the
story, this time appearing in the form of a gigantic bird. Just after
the first of these incidents, Taulat (Taulas) de Rougemont appears
at court, and, as he says, in order to cast shame on Arthur strikes
a knight dead in the presence of the queen (called here Gilaneier,
as throughout the poem — doubtless, owing to a scribal blunder)
and declares he will repeat the performance every year. Jaufre,
son of Dovan, who had just come to court to beg Arthur to knight

brings his hero to a castle of Morgan le Fay’s, but here the MS. breaks
off. These few details hardly make this an Arthurian romance. The
difference of metrical form should be, likewise, noted. The romance
belongs to the late fourteenth century.

Cristal et Clarie, (late thirteenth century) mentioned by Grober,
loc. cit., does not belong to our cycle. Cp. Hermann Breuer’s edition,
Gesellschaft fiir Romanische Philologie, vol. 36 (Dresden, 1915).
So too with Le Romans de la Dame a la Lycorne et du Biau
Chevalier au Lyon (first third of the fourteenth century), edited by
Friedrich Gennrich for the same society as vol. 18 of the series
(Dresden, 1908).

** A new edition by H. Breuer for the Gesellschaft fir Roma-
nische Litteratar was announced as in preparation a few years ago.

*° For some minor contributions to the study of Jaufre, ep.
Grdber, loc. cit. | |

Go ogle

288 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

him now — in spite of Kay’s ridicule — undertakes to pursue
Taulat and punish him for his insolence. The adventures in which
he becomes involved during this pursuit are of the usual fan-
tastic kind. The most noteworthy of them, perhaps, is the one
in which, by plunging to the bottom of a spring, he comes to
a fairy-land presided over by “la fee du Gibel’’ (i. e. Morgan).
In the course of his wanderings, he meets the heroine (the prin-
cess Brunesentz) and at a later time (though long before the end
of the story) he vanquishes Taulat and sends him to Arthur’s court.

The poem was turned into French prose in the fourteenth
century, and this version, combined by a friar, Claude Platin, with a
prose version of Li Biaus Descouneus, was printed three times
in the first half of the sixteenth century. Platin, however, falsely
identified the hero of the romance with the Geoffroy de Mayence
of the chansons de geste. See p. 292, below, for the Spanish prose
romance: Cronica de los nobles cavalleros Tablante de Ricamonte
y Jofre, hijo de Donasson — first printed at Toledo in 1513 and
frequently since — which is principally noteworthy, because it
supplied suggestions to Cervantes for more than one episode in
Don Quixote, e. g. that of the desdichados galeotes (unfortunate
galley-slaves).« |

*° Cp: Lafon, pp. IXf.

Google

Chapter IL.

Portuguese and Spanish Versions
of Arthurian Romances.

The following versions (all in prose) of French romances of
the Arthurian cycle in Portuguese and Spanish, respectively, have
been preserved:

Portuguese.

1. A Historia dos Cavalleiros da Mesa Redonda et da Demanda
do Santo Graall. Cp. I, 469, note 37, above.

2. Lauro de Josep Abaramatia.. Cp. I, 460, above.

3. Estoria do Emperador Vespasiano. This is the same as
No. 2, apparently — only abbreviated. Cp. I, 460, above.

4. Historia de Lancelote, Leonel e Galvan (preserved in a
unique MS. now in the Convento del Angel at Seville). No one
has yet attempted to date this unpublished work or to describe
its contents. The title, however, would seem to indicate that it is
based on the Old French prose Lancelot.?

Spanish.

1. El Baladro del Sabso Merlin. Cp. I, p. 462, note 12, above.

2. Fragments of the Joseph, Merlin and Demanda preserved
in the Madrid MS., Bibl. Real. 2 g. 5 (entitled Leyes de Palencia).
Cp. I, 462, and note 12 ibid., above.

3. Lanzarote del Lago. Versions of the Old French prose
Lancelot in both Spanish (Castilian) and Catalan (both from the
beginning of the fifteenth century) are extant, but have not been

* For notes on this book, cp. G. Baist, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXXI,
605 ff. (1907). Baist maintains that, after all, the Portuguese work
may go back ultimately to a Spanish’ driginal..

* As to a Portuguese Lancelot (really the Demanda) and a
supposed (really, non-existent) version in Provencal, cp. Foerster, Der
Karrenritter, pp. XXVf. (Halle, 1899).

Hefperia, Exgdngungsreihe: 9. 19

Google

290 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

printed. Cp. A. Bonilla y San Martin’s edition (1912) of No. 6,
p. XXIX, and his Las leyendas de Wagner en la literatura es-
paftola, con un apendice sobre El Santo Grial en el “Lanzarote del
Lago’’ Castellano, pp. 47f£. (Madrid, 1913). The MS. of the former
Spanish version bears the date, 1414. In an appendix to the pamph-
let just named, pp. 93—107, Bonilla prints extracts from thie
Spanish version and announces (p. 73, note 1) that his friend,
D. Eduardo de Laiglesia, is preparing an edition of the whole
work. The sixteenth century MS. 9611 (Aa 108, according to the
old numbering) of the National Library at Madrid appears to be
a copy of the MS. from which Bonilla gives excerpts. Klob,
pp. 189ff., has described it and reproduced (p. 190, note 3) some
of its rubrics.

4. El Cuento de Tristan, a fragmentary version of the earlier
form of the French prose Tristan, preserved in the unique MS.
Vatican, 6428 (fourteenth century). E. Monaci has published a
facsimile of it, No. 6 in his Fac-simili dé anticht manoscrittt
(Rome, 1881—1892).

5. La Estoria del noble Vespasiano,® the same as No. 3 in the
Portuguese list above. It was first printed about 1490 and again
in 1499.

6. Libro del Esforgado Cauallero Don Tritsan de Leonis y de
aus Grandes Fechos en Armas. This Castilian adaptation of the
Old French prose Tristan has been edited (Madrid, 1912) by
A. Bonilla y San Martin from the earliest print of the work
(Valladolid, 1501). For other early prints of the same, cp. Bo-
nilla’s edition, pp. LXIViff. The edition of 1528 (Seville) there
described had already been printed by Bonilla in the same volume
(pp. 339ff.) as the Demanda del Sancto Grial.

. G. T. Northup seems to have proved that the Spanish prose
versions of the Tristan romance are based on Italian versions. Cp.
his articles, ““The Italian Origin of the Spanish Prose Tristram

* In regard to this book, see’: Henry Thomas, Spanish and
Portuguese Romances of Chivalry, p. 32 (Cambridge, 1920) — a
work which has great bibliographical value for its subject, in general,
but not for the Arthurian romances.

Google

Portuguese and Spanish Versions of Arthurian Romances 291

Versions,” RR., III, 194ff., (1912) and “The Spanish Prose
Tristram Source Question,” MPbh., 259ff. (19138).

7. Cronica nuevamente emendada y aitadida del buen cabal-
lero don Tristan de Leonis y del rey don Tristan de Leonis, el
joven, su hijo (Seville, 1534). Part I of this book is the same
as No. 5, but Part II is the invention of a new (Spanish) author.
The story of this part begins, in the approved style, at Arthur's
court, but tho majority of the adventures are laid in Spain. Cp.
Menendez y Pelayo, Origénes, I, p. CLX XXIII, note 3. Part II
seems to be of very inferior quality.

In addition to the works just enumerated there appcared at
Seville in 1576, Historia de Perceval de Gaula, caballero de
la Tabla Rotonda el cual acabé la demanda y aventures del
Santo Grial, but no copy of the work is known to exist. Bonilla
is, doubtless, right in surmising that the book was a version of
the 1530 (Paris) print of Perceval le Gallois or Perlesvaus, as it
is commonly called. Cp. his above-mentioned pamphlet, p. 48.

For the Portuguese romances which I have listed above cp.
C. Michaelis de Vasconcellos, Gréber’s Grundriss, II Band, 2 Ab-
teilung, pp. 213ff. (Strassburg, 1894), and for the Spanish, G.
Baist, ibid., pp. 438ff. (1897) and Menendez y Palayo, Origines
de la novela, I, pp. CLIX ff. (Madrid, 1905). Much the fullest
information about the Grail romances in both languages, however,
is given by Otto Klob, ‘Beitrige zur Kenntniss der spanischen
und portugiesischen Gral-Litteratur,’ Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXVI,
169ff. (1901). Klob’s essay, to be sure, is in many respects un-
satisfactory. Cp. on the subject E. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u.
Tntt., XXIX1, 118ff. (1905). There is no evidence, however, in
favor of Brugger’s view (p. 127) that the unprinted Spanish Lan-
zarote del Lago represents an hypothetical lost Lancelot of the
pseudo-Robert de Boron (prose) cycle. The various extracts from
it printed by Bonilla, pp. 73ff., are mere translations from the
corresponding portions of the Vulgate Lancelot. Besides, as we
have seen above, it is extremely doubtful whether a Lancelot was
ever composed for the pseudo-Robert-de-Boron cycle. The fullest

19”

Google

292 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

information about the Spanish Tristan romances is to be found in
Bonilla’s edition of the 1501 print of No. 6, above, pp. XXVIff.

Besides the romances which I have just named, Pascual de
Gayangos in his “‘Catalogo Razonado de los Libros de Caballerias,”’
Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, XL, p. LXIII (Madrid, 1909
reprint), lists a Triunfos de Sagramar em que se trataQ os feitos
dos cavalleiros da segunda Tavola Redonda, Por Jorge Ferreyra
Le Vasconcellos (Coimbra, 1554) and Memorias das proezas da
Segunda Tavola Redonda (Coimbra, 1567). The latter, it seems,
is, also, by Ferreyra de Vasconcellos. There is no ‘Second Round
Table” in French romance, so that I presume that these two Por-
tuguese books are the inventions of this author. Ibid., Gayangos
cites five separate editions of La cronica de los nobles caualleros
Tablanie de Ricamonte y Jofre, hijo de don Asson, the earliest
being printed at Toledo in 1513. G. Paris (p. 217) speaks of the
Cronica as a free imitation of Jaufre, but, according to the plaus-
ible conjecture of Menendez y Pelayo, Orgies, I. p. CLX XXIV,
this Spanish romance is based on a French prose version of the
Provengal poem. Bonilla y San Martin hae reprinted Cronica (from
the edition published at Seville in 1564) in the same volume as the
Demanda. See pp. 459ff. of that volume. This edition of 1564,
used by Bonilla y San Martin, is not included in Gayangos’s list
of five editions.

Google

Chapter III.
Italian Versions of Arthurian Romances.

The versions are in prose, unless otherwise indicated.

1. Tristano (latter part of the thirteenth century), preserved
in a MS. of the Bibliotheca Riccardiana (Florence). Edited by
E. G. Parodi, Il Tristano Riccardiano (Bologna, 1896), in the
Collezione di opere inedite o rare di scrittors italiani dal XIII al
XVI secolo pubblicato per cura della R. commissione pe’ testt di
lingua nelle provincie dell’ Emilia.

2. La Tavola Ritonda o L'I storia di Tristano (thirteenth cen-
tury, but elightly later than No. 1, which is used in it) edited by
Filippo-Luigi Polidori (2 vols. Bologna, i ara in the same
collection as the preceding.

3. Il Febusso e Breusso, poema ora per la prima volta pub-
blicato (Florence, 1847). It is preserved in a MS. of the first half
of the fourteenth century and was composed, doubtless, in that
century. It is divided into six Chantari and is based on an episode
in Palamedes.!

4. An unpublished poem, La Morte di Tristano (fourteenth
century), by a minstrel of the lower classes. Cp. G. Bertoni,
Fanfulla della Domenica, nos. 43, 46, 48 (Rome, 1915).

5. La Vita di Merlino con le sue profezte (last quarter of the
fourteenth century). Printed first at Venice in 1480. This text,
which is the Italian version of Les Prophectes de Merlin (cp.
pp- 28ff., above) has been edited by Ireneo Sanesi under the title of
Storta di Merlino (Bergamo, 1898). On the various MSS. and
early prints, cp. Sanesi’s introduction and Miss Paton, PMLA,
XXVIII, p. 124 (1913).

‘ In the introduction to this edition the editor gives, pp. XCVII
—CLXXII, a Frammento d’ Antico Volgarizzamento di Girone tl
Cortese.

Google

294 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

6. Iai Chantari di Lencelloto (first half of the fifteenth cen-
tury). Cp. I, p. 449, above.

7. Libro de battaglse di Tristano (Cremona, 1492).

8. Girone il Cortese (probably first part of the sixteenth cen-
tury), based on the 1501 edition of the French Guiron le Cour-
tois. The Italian text was edited by Francesco Tassi (Florence,
1855).

9. Gyrone il Cortese, poem by Luigi Alamanni. First printed
at Paris in 1548. Based on the French Guiron le Courtots (edi-
tion of 1501) and Melsadus (edition of 1528).

10. Due libri dell’ opere magnanime dei due Tristani (2. vols.,
Venice, 1655). Translated, according to the author, from the
Spanish. For the Spanish Tristan versions cp. pp. 289—91, above.

11. L'illustre et famosa istoria di Lancillotto del Lago che
fu al tempo del re Artu (8. vols., Venice, 1557—-8 and again
1558—9). Based on the 1533 (Paris) edition of the Lancelot,
which lke the other early prints, embraced, under this title, also,
the Queste and Mort Artu?® of the Vulgate cycle. Foerster, Karren-
rétter, p. XXV, mentions an 1862 reprint of this work, which
I have not seen.

Besides the above, the sixteenth century witnessed the pro-
duction of some Italian Arthurian poems which have a very slender
connection, however, with mediaeval Arthurian traditions, being
really independent compositions, e. g. Nicolo di Agostino’s Lo In-
namorento di Lancellotto (Venice, 1521—6) and Erasmo da Val-
vasone’s I quattro primi canti di Lancillotto (Venice, 1580) —
both poems. Cp. Polidori, I, pp. XXXIIff. on works of this
character.

On the subject of the Italian Arthurian romances, cp. G.
Melzi, Bibliografia dei Romanzi di Cavaleria in versi e in prosa
italiant (8rd and best edition, Milan, 1865) — also, Polidori’s
edition of La Tavola Ritonda, I, pp. XXXIff.

* An Italian version (now lost) of the Mort Artu appears to
have been in existence as early as 1279.

Google

Chapter IV.
German Versions of Arthurian Romances.

Except where the contrary is stated, they are all in verse.

1. Eilhart von Oberge’s Tristrant (about 1170). Edited by
Franz Lichtenstein, Quellen und Forschungen, XIX (Strassburg,
1877).

2. Hartmann von Aue’s Erec (shortly after 1191).

3. The same author’s Iwein (about 1202). Cp. I, p. 124, above.

4. Ulrich von Zatzikhoven’s Lanzelgt (last decade of the
twelfth century). Cp. I, 124, 208ff., above.!

5. Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival (about 1205). Cp.
I, p- 124, above.

6. Wirnt von Grafenberg’s Wigalois (shortly before 1210).
Edited by G. F. Benecko (2 vols. Berlin, 1819) and by F. Pfeiffer
(Leipzig 1847). Cp. pp. 197—8, above.

7. Gottfried von Strassburg’s Tristan (about 1210). Cp.
I, p. 162, note 12, above.

8. Wolfram’s Titurel (between 1217 and 1220).

9. Heinrich von Tirlin, Deu Aiki a (shortly before
1220). Cp. I, p. 124, above. 2, °° |

10. Manuel und Amande leisaetecl in handwriting of the
early fourteenth century, but date of composition undeterminable,
although the poem belongs probably to the thirteenth century ).
Only fragments of this poem survive — 272 lines in all. Edited by
Oswald Zingerle, “‘Manuel und Amande: Bruchstiicke eines Artus-
romans,” Zs. f. d. A., XXVI, 297ff. (1882).

The hero, Manuel, is a Greek, and after his marriage to
Amande, a Spanish princess, at Carduel, in Arthur’s presence, he
took his bride to Greece to live.

* For some recent studies of the Lanzelet, from the point of
view of style, cp. J. L. Campion, MLN, XXXII, 416ff. (1917).

Google

296 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

According to the author, Arthur's apparent death was the
result of his fight with a monster cat — which was, it seems,
at the same time, a fish. (Our fragments do not preserve the
actual narrative of this combat, but this is the necessary inference
from them.) Eleven years after his disappearance, his queen died
of grief on his account and was buried at St. David’s (in Wales).
He, himself, however, returned subsequently and presided over the
Round Table for twenty-five years longer.

On this poem Cp. G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 218ff. Paris places
it in the twelfth century, but this is, doubtless, too early.

11. Daniel von dem Bltihenden Tal, ein Artusroman von dem
Stricker, herausgegeben von Gustav Rosenhagen (Breslau, 1894):
Heft 9 of the Germanistische Abhandlungen, begriindet von Karl
Wetnhold, herausgegeben von Friederich Vogt. 8482 lines. The
incidents are of the same character as those in the French romances
of the cycle* and G. Paris, in his discussion of the poem,? HLF,
XXX, 186ff., was inclined to regard it as based on a French
original. Rosenhagen, however, has shown that German sources

‘account for everything in the romance and that Paris’s hypothesis

is, therefore, unnecessary. Most of the hero’s adventures are in
a sort of fairyland, called Cluse (i. e. the Enclosed Land) which
is cut off from the rest of the world by mountains. It is only
accessible through a tunnel, which, ordinarily, however, is closed
by a stone. — The poem belongs, most likely, to the second decade
of the thirteenth century.

12. Ulrich von Tiirheim’s Tristan (about 1236). The text

* For example, at the beginning, Arthur is waiting for an ad-
venture, before he will eat. The most original feature of the story is
the fantastic beast which carries a banner in its mouth and which,
as soon as this banner is removed, emits a horrible cry that, if con-
tinued, in a short time kills all that hear it. I observe in the
Dionysiaca, XXVIII, 270ff., of the Greek poet, Nonnus (fourth cen-
tury A. D.) that Halimedes, the Cyclops, killed twelve men by a
single cry.

* Since the Daniel was then unpublished, Paris had to rely on
the analysis of the poem in K. Bartsch’s edition (Quedlinburg and
Leipzig, 1857) of the same author's Karl der Grosse, pp. VII ff.

Google

German Versions of Arthurian Romances 297

will be found in the old editions of Gottfried’s Tristan by Groote,
Hagen and Massmann — e. g. in Massmann’s, pp. 498—590 (Leip-
zig, 1843). The work is a continuation of Gottfried, but the
author follows especially Hilhart’s version of his hero’s story.

13. Clies (about the same time as the preceding), a German
version of Chrétien’s Cliges. Only some insignificant fragments
survive and these are probably by Ulrich von Tiirheim. Cp. Zs.
f.d. A.. XXXII, 128ff.'

14. Segremors. Only three small fragments of this romance
survive. All three seem to have belonged originally to the same
MS. (fourteenth century), but they are now preserved in three
different libraries. Following are the editions of the fragments
numbered according to what appears to have been their order in
the original MS.

(1) Reinhold Kéhler, ‘‘Bruchstiicke eines Gedichts aus dem
Artuskreise,” Germania, V, 461—463 (1860). 144 lines: Segre-
mor is going forth to fight Gawain. Malgrim (a dwarf) pro-
tests in vain that he (Segremor) is too young for such an under-
taking. Niobe, Segremor’s sweetheart, is in despair as he leaves -—-
subsequently decides to go with him.

(2) Karl Regel, ‘‘Bruchstiick cines Gedichts aus dem Kreise
der Artussage,’’ Zs. f. d. A., XI, 490—500 (1859). 288 lines:
Maurin wishes Segremor success in his impending combat (with
Gawain, evidently) and Segremor rides away to Munpholie (Mont-
pelier?). In his search for Gawain, Segremor comes upon Sirikirsan
(lord of Boukovereye), who, according to the custom of his coun-
try, is holding the annual assembly of the young men and young
women, respectively, who desire to marry that year. <A series of

* J. L. Campion has a new edition in preparation. Cp. his Das
Verwandtschaftsverhdltniss der Handschriften des Tristan Ulrichs
von Turheim, nebst einer Probe des Kritischen Textes. Johns
Hopkins University diss., 1918.

* According to Rudolf von Ems, both Ulrich von Tirheim and
Konrad Fleck (about 1230) composed poems named Cites. For these
allusions, cp. W. Foerster’s large edition of Chrétien's Cliges, pp. XXV¢f.
The extant fragments are more likely to be by Ulrich. Lachmann
conjectared that Ulrich’s Cltes was a continuation of Fleck’s.

Google

298 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

jousts are held, and the victorious knights, in the order of their
success, have their choice of the girls. On an island of ideal beauty,
nearby, where it is always May, Karmente (manifestly, a fairy)
lives in a fine tower. Any knight who wanted her love had to
fight for her, but, if himself later overthrown by another knight,
had to yield his place to the victor. She is now, it seems, in Ga-
waln’s possession.

(3) Moriz Haupt and Heinrich Hoffmann: Altdeutsche Blatter,
II, 152—154 (Leipzig, 1840). At. the end of a combat with
Segremor, Gawain surrenders. The citizens wish to rescue him,
but he forbids. The two knights constantly ride out together in
amicable fashion. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the fragment,
the citizens are again preparing to intervene.

H. Suchier, ‘‘Anspielung an ein unbekanntes Gedicht (Segre-
mors?),”’ Germania, XVIII, 115f. (1873), conjectured that there
is an allusion to this poem in Ulrich von Tiirheim’s Willehalm
(written between 1261 and 1265). If this conjecture were correct,
we should have an approximate terminus ad quem for our romance,
but G. Paris, in his discussion of this romance, HLF, XXX, 261f.,
has pointed out that the allusion is probably to the German ro-
mance Manuel und Amande. Paris, loc. cit., has pointed out, also,
what seem manifest imitations of Meraugis de Portlesguez in the
present poem. Some of the names, moreover — Maurin, etc., —
appear to be drawn from Wolfram’s Parzival. Segremors was prob-
ably composed in the first half of the thirteenth century.

15. Wigamur (probably second quarter of the thirteenth cen-
tury). — It occupies 62 pagea (two columns to the page) in
Deutsche Gedichte des Mittelalters, herausgegeben von Friederich
Heimrich von der Hagen und Dr. Johann Gustav Biisching, vol. I
(2 vols., Berlin, 1808).

The hero’s name is derived from Guéngamor, the name of the
hero of Marie de France's well-known lay, but, as in the case of
Nos. 16—24 that follow, the story was substantially invented by
the author and is not based on any French original. Cp. G. Paris,
HLF., XXX, 269f., G. Sarrazin, Wigamur, eine literarhisto-

Google

German Versions of Arthurian Romances 299

rische Untersuchung, vol. 35 (Strassburg, 1879) and Zs. f. d. A.,
XXIV, 97. |

16. Edolanz (about 1250). Only small fragments have been
preserved. One fragment will be found in “‘Gawein: Drei Bruch-
atiicke,’’ Alideutsche Blatter von Moriz Haupt und Heinrich Hof f-
mann [von Fallersleben],¢ II, 148—152, others in Anton Schin-
bach’s “‘Neue Bruchstiicke des Edolanz,” Zs. f. d. A., XXV, 271f.
(1881).

17. Garel vom bltihenden Tal, ein héfischer Roman aus dem
Artussagenkreise von dem Pleter mit den Fresken des Garelsaales
auf Runkelstetn herausgegeben von Dr. M. Walz (Freiburg i. B.,
1892). 21310 lines. This poem, like the next two by the same
author, was composed, it would seem, between 1260 and 1280.

18. Tendareis und Flordibel, etn héfischer Roman von dem
Pleiare, herausgegeben von Ferdinand Khull (Graz, 1885). 18339
lines.

19. Meleranz von dem Pleier, herausgegeben von Karl Bartsch
(Stuttgart, 1861): Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stutt-
gart, LX. 12834 lines. |

20. Der jitngere Titurel. Edited by K. A. Hahn (Quedlinburg
and Leipzig, 1842). Composed by a Bavarian or Austrian poet
named Albrecht (otherwise unknown) — probably in the third
quarter of the thirteenth century. On this poem cp. Zs. f. d. A.,
XXVII, 158ff. and Conrad Borchling’s Der jingere Titurel und
seen Verhdlinis zu Wolfram von Eschenbach (Gottingen, 1897).
The author uses Wolfram’s Parzival and Titurel, but no French
romance.

21. Lohengrin (between 1276 and 1290), edited by Heinrich
Rickert (Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1858). 7670 lines, in 767
stanzas. Based on suggestions of Wolfram’s poems — otherwise,
invented by the author.

22. Albrecht von Scharfenberg (second of the thirteenth cen-
tury). His poems are preserved only in partial fifteenth cen-
tury redactions. See the next page.

* Only the first of the fragments belongs to Edolanz. The
second belongs to Segremors; the provenience of the third is doubtful.

Google

300 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

23. Heinrich von Freiberg’s Tristan (between 1285 and 1290).
Edited by Alois Bernt (Halle, 1906).? 6890 lines. It continues
Gottfried’s Tristan and its sole sources for the story are Ulrich von
Tirheim, Gottfried, and Eilhart.®

24. Gauriel von Muntabel (shortly after 1800), by Konrad
von Stoffeln. Edited by F. Khull (Graz, 1885).

25. Parzifal, composed by Claus Wisse and Philipp Colin (two
citizens of Strassburg) between 1331 and 1336 as a continuation
of Wolfram’s Parzival. 36489 lines. Edited by Karl Schorbach
as Vol. 5 (Strassburg and London, 1888) of the Elsdssische Lit-
teraturdenkmdler aus dem XIV—XVII Jahrhundert, herausge-
geben von Ernst Martin und Erich Schmidt. As Colin tells us,
a Jew, Sampson Pine, turned the French into German for the Ger-
man poets. According to Schorbach, p. XLI, the sources of the
poem are 1. the Hlucidation, 2. Chrétien’s Perceval, 3. Pseudo-
Wauchier, 4. Wauchier, 5. Manessier.

26. Albrecht von Scharfenberg’s Merlin (fifteenth century),
which was based on a particular redaction of Robert de Boron’s
Merlin and the Vulgate Hstoire del Saint Graal — in U. Fueterer’s
Buch der Abenteuer,® from which it has been edited by F. Panzer
in his Merlen und Setfrid de Ardemont von Albrecht von Scharfen-
berg in der Bearbettung Ulrich Fuetrers, Bibliothek des Litte-
rarischen Vereins tn Stuttgart, vol. 227 (1902).

27. A prose version, still unprinted, of the Old French prose
Lancelot (in MSS. of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries), which
was, probably, composed in the thirteenth century, although this.
cannot be proved.!° |

7 For older editions see introduction to this work, p. 19. 3

* §. Singer maintains, Zs. f. d. Ph., XXIX, 73ft., that Heinrich
also used a French Tristan romance, but this view is refuted by Bernt,
Introduction, pp. 168ff. See, also, F. Wiegandt, Heinrich von Freiberg
in seinem Verhdlinis zu Etlhart und Ulrich (Rostock diss., 1879).

* The same work includes, also, a partial redaction of Albert's
Seifrid de Ardemont, which contains Arthurian elements but cannot
be reckoned an Arthurian romance. The Seifrid, in its original form,
dated from the thirteenth century.

*° The best authority on the subject of the German versions of

Google

German Versions of Arthurian Romances 301

28. A prose redaction of No. 27 by Ulrich Fueterer (probably
in last quarter of the fifteenth century). Edited by A. Peter in
Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, vol. 175 (Ti-
bingen, 1885).

29. A poetical version by Fueterer — based on his prose
version and included in his Buch der Abenteuer.

30. Tristan und Isolde (prose version of Eilhart’s Tristrant),
first printed at Augsburg in 1484 and frequently since! — last
edited by Richard Benz (Jena, 1912) in the series, Die deutschen
Volkabiicher. Cp., too, F. Pfaff’s edition, Tristrant und Isolde,
Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, vol. 152 (1881).

31. Wigoleiss vom Rade (prose version of Wirnt’s Wigalois),
first printed at Augsburg in 1493 and more than once in the
following century. Cp. J. G. T. Grasse, Lehrbuch einer Literar-
geschichte der berhtimtesten Volker des Mittelalters, pp. 225f.
Zweiter Band. Dritte Abtheilung (Dresden and Leipzig, 1842).
The work was composed in 1472.

32. A German poem (in couplets of irregular length), based
on Wirnt’s Wigalois and written in Hebrew characters. It is most
commonly known as Artus-Hof. It exists in two MSS. of the
sixteenth century and in printed editions of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries and has latterly been edited by L. Landau,
under the title of Arthurian Legends or the Hebrew-German
Rhymed version of the Legend of King Arthur: Teutonia, Heft 21
(Leipzig, 1912).1

the prose Lancelot (which include, also, the Queste and Mort Artu)
is A. Peter’s “Die deutschen Prosaromane von Lanzelot", Germania,

XXVIII, 129¢f. (1888). so
*" For the old editions, Cp. Lichtenstein’s edition of Eilhart,
pp. XVILf. :

** The first person who transliterated this version into German
characters seems to have been Wagenseil in the edition of 1699
(Kénigsberg). There was also a Hebrew-German version of the same
romance in ottava rima (Prag, 1652—1679). Lindau, p. XLI, derives
this and the couplet version from a common (hypothetical) source,
“Original Hebrew-German versions’, of the fourteenth century. In his
introduction this scholar discusses, too, Mediaeval Hebrew versions of

Google

302 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

In addition to the German romances which I have listed, we
have a small fragment of a Low German version of the Old French
prose Lancelot. Cp. Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian Academy
of Sciences for 1896, pp. 313—316.

other romances of the period. He does not, however, refer to the
Hebrew Mort Artu, mentioned above.

Google

Chapter V.
Dutch Versions of Arthurian Romances.

In the following list Nos. 2—9 were probably composed in the
second half of the thirteenth century. Where the date is certain,
this is definitely indicated.

1. Roman van Walewein door Penninc en Pieter Vostaert ust-
gegeven door W. J. A. Jonckbloet (2 parts, Leiden, 1846—8)
11198 lines. Date, probably about 1250. Discussed by G. Paris,
HLF, XXX, 82—84, under the title, Gauvamn et l’ Echiquier.
Jonckbloet and Paris regard it as translated from a French origi-
nal. It is more probably an independent poem,’ although the
author may have used some French sources.

2. Jacob Van Maerlant: Historte van den Grale and Merlijns
Boeck, edited as Jacob Van Maerlant’s Merlijn by J. Van Vloten
(Leiden, 1880). 10452 octosyllabic lines. Composed about 1261
and based on the Old French prose version of Robert de Boron’s
Merlin. For Lodewijc Van Velthem’s continuation of this work,
see No. 11, p. 306, below.

3. Torec (about 1262). Edited by Jonckbloet as part of No. 10
(sce below), and, separately (Leiden, 1875), by Jan Te Winkel.
A fragment of 3480 lines. G. Paris, in his discussion of the poem,
HLF, XXX, 263 ff., regards it as based on a French original? —
very likely, the French romance of the same name which was in
the library of the Louvre in the fourteenth century.

4. Ferguut. Edited by L. G. Visscher (Utrecht, 1838) and
by J. Verdam and Eelco Verwijs* (Groningen, 1882). 5589 lines.‘

* This is the view of J. Te Winkel, Paul’s Grundriss, II, I,
p. 459 and G. Kalff, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letterkunde,
I, 119 (7 vols., Groningen 1906—1912).

* Kalff, op. cit., 1, 238, questions this, but Paris is, doubtless right.

* Verdam began the edition but died before completing it. Verwijs
completed it.

* According to Verwijs, the portion after 1. 2592 is by an in-

Google

304 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Translated from the French Fergus. The later edition constitutes
a volume in the Bibliothek van Middelnederlandsche Letterkunde.

5. Moriaen. 4716 lines. Edited first by Jonckbloet (cp.
No. 10, below) and, separately, by Jan Te Winkel, Roman van
Moriaen (Groningen, 1882), in the same series as nos. 3 and 7.
On this romance cp. G. Paris, HLF, XXX, 247ff., where it is
called Morien — also Miss J. L. Weston’s translation of it into
English prose, The Romance of Morien (London, 1901). Unlike
its editors, Paris and Miss Weston regard the poem not as an ori-
ginal composition, but as a translation from a lost French romance.
In any event, it drew, at least, partly from French sources. On
its connection with the Grail traditions, cp. I, 331, note 33, above.

6. Die Wrake van Ragisel. 2975 lines: a version of La Venge-
ance Raguidel. Edited by Jonckbloet. Cp. no. 10, below.

7. Roman van den Riddere metter Mouwen. Edited by Jonck-
bloet (cp. no. 10, below) and, separately, by Bertha M. van der
Stempel (Leiden, 1914) in the same series as the preceding. Ac-
cording to the second editor, pp. XIIff., the source of the poem
is the French romance, Richars li Biaus.5 G. Paris has discussed
the present romance, HLF, XXX, 121ff., under the title of Le
Chevalier a la Manche.

8. Walewein ende Keye. 3668 lines. Edited by Jonckbloet.
Cp., no. 10, below. For a discussion of this romance, which 1s
probably based on a lost French original, cp. G. Paris, op. cit.,
84 ff.

9. The romance (probably adapted from a lost French origi-_
nal) discussed by G. Paris, op. cit., pp. 118ff. under the title,
Lancelot et la cerf au pied blanche. 855 lines. It was edited by
Jonckbloet as a part of No. 10, below.

10. Roman van Lancelot, edited by W. J. A. Jonckbloet
(2 parts, The Hague, 1846—9).¢ Jonckbloet published under this

ferior hand. Kalff, pp. 113f., however, denies any difference of
authorship.

* Edited by Wendelin Foerster (Wien, 1874).

* For a discussion of this vast compilation cp. Miss J. L. Weston,
The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac, 147 tf. (London, 1901). She

Google

Dutch Versions of Arthurian Romances 305

title the unique MS. which once belonged to Lodewijo Van Velthem
and which consists of a collection of Arthurian romances in oo-
tosyllabic couplets. The MS. was originally divided into four books.
The first of theese books has been lost, but the remaining three
contain a total of 87296 lines. Jonckbloet gives a separate number-
ing to the lines of each book. Thus Book II consists of 47262
lines, made up as follows: 1. ll. 1—386947: a metrical paraphrase
of the last division of the French prose Lancelot — vis. the so-
called Agravawm. 2. ll 386948—42546: a version of a part of
Chreétien’s Perceval (almost wholly the part which deals with Ga-
wain’s adventures). 3. ll. 42547—47262: Moriaen. Cp., No. 5,
above. 3 |
Book III consists of 26980 lince, made up as follows:

(1) ll. 1—11160: a metrical paraphrase of the Vulgate Queste
del Sawmt Graal.

(2) ll. 11161—14136: Dte Wrake van Ragisel. Cp. no. 6,
above.

(3) ll. 14137—14580: Two episodes in which Lancelot
plays the chief rdle.? In the second, acting on information from
Dodinel, Lancelot and Bohort rescue a maiden whom ruffian
knights had bound to a tree, because she had aided Lionel in es-
caping from prison. The introduction of Lionel and Bohort into
the story shows that the original author of this episode knew the
prose Lancelot. Whether he was a Frenchman we cannot say.

(4) ll. 14581—18602: De Ridder metter Mouwen. Cp. No. 6
above.

greatly exaggerates, however, the value of the Dutch romances (or
their French originals) in their relation to the development of Arthurian
traditions. For the errors into which she has fallen in regard to its
version of the Mort Artu, cp. I, 426 ff., notes 164, 166, 171, above.

" As regards the first, which is a sort of appendix to the
Vengeance Raguidel, Guinevere had cut a sorry figure in the in-
cident of the chastity-testing mantle and Lancelot was s0 sensitive on
the subject that the sight of a mantle made him fighting mad. Now,
he meets Yder with Belinette, and the latter is wearing a mantle, so he
attacks Yder. After they have fought for some time, Bohort turns up and
discloses Yder’s identity to Lancelot, whereupon they stop the combat. —

20

Refperta, Ergdnsungsreihe: 9.

Google

306 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

(5) ll. 186083—22270: Walewein ende Keye. Cp. No. 8, above.
(6) ll. 22271—23125: The romance, named by G. Paris, Lance-
lot et la cerf au pied blanc. Cp. No. 9, above. |

Book IV, which contains 13054 lines, is a metrical para-
phrase of the Vulgate Mort Artu.

All the romances in the compilation published by Jonckbloet
were probably composed in the second half of the thirteenth cen-
tury or the first half of the fourteenth — more likely, the former.
With the exception of the portions which were translated from
the Vulgate cycle, its component parts were, doubtless, all indepen-
dent of each other in their origin, and even these parts may have
been by different authors.

11. Lodowijck Van Velthem’s Boec van Coninc Artur (finish-
ed 1326). 25766 lines. Edited by J. Van Vloten in his edition
of Van Maerlant’s Merlijn (cp. no. 2, above), which poem it con-
tinues from 1. 10453 to 1. 36218 (end). Van Velthem’s work is
based on the so-called Livre d' Artus (Merlin- continuation) of the
Vulgate cycle.®

The Scandinavian versions of the mattére de Bretagne hardly
require separate treatment in this place. Cp. on the subject E.
Mogk, Paul’s Grundriss II, I, 186, 147, — also, H. G. Leach,
Angevin Britain and Scandinavia, ch. VI—ITX (Cambridge, Maas.,
1921). Besides the prose versions of Chrétien’s Yvain, Erec and
Perceval (Inventssaga, Erexsaga, Parcevalssaga) — the first of
which dates from the early thirteenth century, the others from the
early fourteenth — we have the Tristamssaga (cp., I, 162, 483ff.,
above), a prose version of Thomas's Tristan, composed in 1226 by
an abbot, named Robert (otherwise unknown) — still further, the
Strengleikar (see above), a version of French lays and the Méttuls-
saga (version of the story of the chastity-testing mantle) — both,
probably, aleo by this same Robert — and a brief poem on Gawain
called Valverspatir (early fourteenth century). All of the works

* The total number of Dutch romances is slightly higher than
eleven, if we take into account the fragmentary version of Chrétien's
Perceval, the paraphrases from the Vulgate cycle, and the isolated
episodes included in No. 10.

Google

Dutch Verstons of Arthurian Romances 307

which I have just enumerated were composed in Norwegian —
Icelandic. There is, besides, however, a Swedish version of Yvain,
executed it seems in 1303. This exhausts the list of the Ar-
_thurian materials in the Scandinavian languages which have been
edited. Mogk, however, op. cit., p. 135, refers (without naming
them) to a number of Arthurian compositions in those languages
as still unpublished.

The Swedish metrical romance, Duke Frederick of Normandy
(beginning of the fourteenth century) has sometimes been assigned
to the Arthurian cycle, but its connection with that cycle is very
slight. For an analysis and discussion of this poem, which is
more probably adapted from a Low German than from a French
original, see, especially, Edward Thorstenberg, ‘‘Duke Frederick
of Normandy, an Arthurian Romance,” MPh., VII, 395ff. (1910).

20*

Google

Chapter VL
Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle.
1. L’Estoire del Saint Graal.

According to the introduction to this romance (pp. 3—12),
the author is a hermit, who, fearing lest personal envy might
impair the authority of his work, does not divulge his name. On
Good Friday in 717 A. D. Christ appeared to him in a dream,
and presented him with a little book (cp. Revelation, ch. X) which
would dispel his doubts concerning the Trinity. The Savior de-
clares that he (Christ) had written the book with his own hand,
it being, indeed (119f.), the only thing that he wrote after his
resurrection. Our author found that the volume contained accounts
of hie (the author’s) ancestors, of the Holy Grail and of certain
unspeakably fearful things (left undefined). He swoons, is borne
up into the heavens, beholds the Trinity, and has his doubts on
that subject solved. He puts the book away with the corpus do-
mimi, but it disappears. Later he discovers it on the altar of
@ mysterious forest chapel. Obeying Christ’s command, on the
Monday following Easter Monday, he transcribes from the little
volume the early history of the Holy Grail. (Here, p. 12, ends
the Introduction. ) |

In the beginning of the romance proper we have the history
of Joseph of Arimathea, his imprisonment, his liberation by
Vespasian, and his setting forth on his travels with the Holy Grail
— all drawn substantially from Robert de Boron (q. v., I, 230ff.,
above) — only Hebron, Alain ete. are here omitted from the Grail
company, which includes, however, a new character, viz. Josephe,
Joseph’s son. Josephe and his father, alone, are allowed to open
the ark in which the Grail is carried. — The Grail company first
arrives at Sarras, a heathen capital, whose king, Evalac, had re-
cently been defeated by hie former suzcrain, Tholomer (= Ptolemy),

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 309

king of Egypt. Joseph promises victory to the vanquished mon-.
arch, if he will adopt Christianity. The latter is puzzled by the
doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation — so, too, are his wise
men. A vision, however, symbolizing these mysteries, impresses
him. Christ, himself, now consecrates Josephe bishop of the land
(p. 36).

In the war against Tholomer that ensues, Evalac’s brother-
in-law, Seraphe, fights valorously, but it is Christ who, in answer
to Evalac’s prayer and in the guise of a white knight, finally
turns defeat into victory. Seraphe is then baptized under the name
of Nascien, Evalac under the name of Mordrain. From curiosity,
Nascien uncovers the Grail and is stricken thereby with blindness,
but he is healed with drops from a bleeding lance, which, as Jo-
sephe prophesies, will not bleed again until the adventures of the
Grail take place. Only the last of Nascien’s line [i. e. Galahad]
will ever behold the marvels of that vessel (p. 81). — Mordrain
has a strange dream concerning Nascien’s descendants and is then
borne away by the Holy Ghost to an isle in the sea, once oc-
cupied by Forcaire, a pirate, who was hunted down by Pompey
the Great. Here he is tempted by a devil and comforted by the
Savior, both disguised. The people hold Nascien responsible for
Mordrain’s disappearance and imprison him. He is miraculously
snatched from the prison, however, and set down on an island in
the sea, the Turning Island (p. 114). A beautiful ship arrives
here. On this ship Nascien finds a mich bed, a gold crown, a
sword of fabulous workmanship (it had been King David's), but
with cheap hangings of tow and hemp. On the bed there were,
likewise, three spindles — red, white and green, respectively —
made from scions (planted by Eve) of the Tree of Life. Having
had a vision of the last of his line (Galahad), King Solomon,
on his wife’s advice, had had this ship built and the above-men-
tioned objects, intended for the descendant in question, placed on
board, together with a letter which bids him heed Solomon’s ex-
ample and beware of women (p. 135). Solomon’s wife put the
hangings on the sword, but a damsel (Perceval’s sister) was destined
to replace them with costlier ones. Nascien, being sinful, was

Google

310 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

unworthy to enter the ship and is cast into the water. Later an
old man interprets to him the allegorical meaning of the ship
(Holy Church), the bed (eucharistic table) etc. — Nascien’s ten-
year old son, Celidoine, is, also, borne to an island in the ocean,
the ruler of which is the pagan king Label. The boy predicts
the king’s impending death and converts him (p. 157). Label’s
subjects now set the young prophet adrift on a vessel which brings
him to Solomon’s ship. In the latter he fetches his father away
from the Turning Island and takes Mordrain from another ship.
Mordrain joins together the pieces of King David's sword, which
had broken in the hands of the unworthy Nascien. By divine
command, they all now transfer themselves to Mordrain’s ship,
and later come to a castle that belongs to a son of that monarch.
Here the wives of Mordrain and Nascien are awaiting them —
also, Label’s daughter, whose experiences, including her conversion
to Christianity and visit to the ruins of Hippocrates’s palace,’ had
previously been told. Celidoine now, on the warning of a hermit,
embarks on a vessel, which (as it turns out) takes him to Great
Britain, whither Joseph and his company had just gone. Nascien,
in search of Celidoine, comes to Solomon’s ship (p. 201), learns
in a dream about his own future and where his son is — also,
sees in this dream his nine successive descendants and is told that
the last of them (Galahad) is to be taken back to Sarras in this
same ship.

In the meanwhile, Joseph’s company had crossed the sea to
Great Britain, the Grail-bearers walking on the water, Joseph,
Bron (mentioned here, p. 209, for the first time), and others that
were pure, on Josephe’s shirt spread out on the sea (p. 211),
the sinners in galleys. The ship to which Nascien has been mira-
culously transferred fiom Solomon’s ship now drifts to the port
of embarkation of these sinners. Whilst Nascien is asleep, they
get on board and sail away to Great Britain. On their arrival
in that country they are welcomed by Josephe and his companions.
Fed in a marvellous manner by the Grail, the Christians begin

* At this point (p. 171) is inserted an amusing fabliau, relating
how a woman made a fool of the wise physician.

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 311

the conversion of Britain. The first convert is Duke Ganor, who
is won over by Celidoine’s arguments and Josephe’s interpretation
of a dream that the duke had had (p. 223). At Galafort, Ganor’s
capital, Joseph’s son, Galahad (not the Grail knight) is born.
Ganor’s pagan liege lord, king of Northumberland, wages war on
him and is slain by Nascien, but Joseph, Josephe and others, trying
to convert Crudel, king of Norgales, are thrown into prison. —
The same night Christ commands Mordrain to go to Britain, where
Nascien, Ganor and others join him. In the battle that follows
Crudel is killed, but Mordrain is grievously wounded. The next
day Mordrain is punished with blindness and paralysis for ende-
avoring to see the Grail (p. 241). A celestial voice proclaims
that he will be cured, only when the good knight (Galahad) visits
him. He retires to a hermitage, turns it into an abbey, and endows
it. — Josephe continues to preach the gospel. Among his ostensible
converts is the Saracen king of Camelot, who, after Josephe’s
departure, however, kills twelve of his (Josephe’s) relatives near
a cross (hence called the Black Cross). Josephe has the heathen
temples in Camelot demolished and St. Stephen’s church erected
instead. — Bron learns from Josephe that the vacant seat at the
Grail table (occupied by Jesus at the Last Supper) will remain
empty until it is filled by Christ or some one sent by Christ —
(p. 247). Moys, who tries to occupy it, is snatched away by fiery
hands. Alain is consecrated by Josephe to succeed him as Grail-
keeper after the latter’s decease. He feeds their followers miracul-
ously with a single fish which he had caught — hence the title
of “Rich Fisher” is conferred on him and all subsequent Grail
keepers. — After various supernatural experiences of Joseph and
Josephe, including an allegorical vision of a stag (Christ) and four
lions (the four evangelists), they come to Scotland. Crimes of
Symeu and Chanaan, two sinners of the Grail company (p. 263),
and miraculous signs at the tombs of the latter’s victims and his
own tomb (a fire which will not be extinguished, until Lancelot
visits it). Peter, of the Grail company, ancestor of Gawain and
his brothers, has his wound (received from Chanaan) healed on
the isle of King Orcan, whose daughter he weds (p. 279). —

Google

312 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

After missionary work, lasting fifteen years, Josephe dies (shortly
after Joseph). He is first buried at Mordrain’s abbey, but the
corpse later is borne to Scotland to allay a famine and re-interred
there. His brother, Galahad, king of Hocelice (later called Gales)
and progenitor of Urien and Ivain, founds an abbey near the burn-
ing tomb of Symeu, the flames of which will not cease until the
younger Galahad comes. — Alain succeeds Josephe as Grail-keeper
(p. 286) and goes to the Terre Foraine, whose ruler, a leper,
he heals and converts. This ruler, Alphasem, builds a castle for
the Grail. Its name, Corbenic (Chaldee for ‘‘most holy vessel’’)
appears miraculously over one of its doors. Alain and Alphasem
soon died and Josue became the next “Rich Fisher.” — A pagan
king, Brulans, slew Lambor, fourth in descent from Josue, and
thereby the ‘terre foraine’’ became the ‘‘terre gaste.’’ Pelleam,
Lambor’s son and successor, being disabled by wounds, was called
the “Maimed King”’ (p. 290). He, in turn, was suoceeded by
his son, Pelles, father of the younger Galahad’s mother. — Nascien
did not long survive Josephe and he was succeeded by Celidoine,
who protected his people against famine and Saxon invasion. The
throne descended ultimately to the older Lancelot (grandfather
of Lancelot, Guinevere’s lover), and then to Ban (father of the
younger Lancelot). Two marvellous lions guarded the wonder-
working tomb of the former, until they were killed by the younger
Lancelot (p. 296).

2. Vulgate Merlin.

The opening division? of the Vulgate Merlin is a mere prose
rendering of Robert de Boron’s Merlin.’ After the coronation of
Arthur, however, there begins a long continuation (Sommer, II,
88, line 19—466) of that work which makes this branch, os a
whole, the bulkiest of the romances of the Vulgate cycle, except
the Lancelot. This continuation, as was said above, is intended
to connect Robert's Merlin with the Lancelot, and consists, for

* Sommer, I, 3—88, line 18.
* Another text of this prose rendering will be found in the
Huth-Merlin, I, 1—146.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 313

the most part, of accounts of wars waged 1. by Arthur against
other British chieftains, 2. by Arthur and these same chieftains
against the Saxons. These narratives, however, are so intolerably
commonplace, prolix, and monotonous that a bare indication of
the contente of the main episodes of this kind will be sufficient
for our present purpose.

The prose rendering of Robert's Merlin runs as follows:

When Christ, in the interval of three days between his death
and resurrection, had descended into hell and had delivered from
captivity there Adam and Eve and the reset, the devils were very
angry and they took counsel together: in order to determine how
they might recover their power. They decide that they can best
attain their ends through a man who, like Christ, should combine
human and supernatural attributes, but the object of whose exertions
should be the ruin of mankind, instead of their salvation. The
evil spirits, consequently, send up to the earth one of their number
who is capable of carnal intercourse with women, in order that
he may beget upon some virgin the unholy offspring who is to
execute their hellish designs. The fiend who has been appointed
for this purpose already has under his influence a rich man’s
wife and he begins by destroying the husband's stock (at the wife’s
instigation) and reducing him to such despair that in an unwary
moment he angrily devotes everything that belongs to him to the
devil and withdraws himself from the society of men. The effects
of this unhappy speech soon make themselves manifest, for the
devil in question now strangles the man’s son and causes the woman
to hang herself (p. 5). The three daughters of the couple, how-
ever, still remain to be ruined: A young man, inspired by the
fiend, seduces one of these, and she is condemned to die by being:
buried alive. Seeing that the devil is at work in the unfortunate
family, a pious confessor goes to the surviving sisters and urges
them to be virtuous. His exhortations are heeded by the elder of
the two, but the younger, yielding to the evil suggestions of a
woman whom the fiend possesses, becomes a strumpet. The holy
man now renews his exhortations to the older sister and warns her,
above all things, never to give way to impulses of wrath, for in

Google

314 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

such moments she would be at the mercy of the devil. The girl
obeys, until one day her sister came with some vicious companions,
accused her of illicit relations with the confessor, and finally beat
her. The unfortunate victim forgets her confessor’s injunction,
falls into anger, locks herself up in her house, goes to bed, and
falls asleep weeping. The fiend now sees his opportunity and
cohabits with her whilst she is asleep. Remembering the occur-
rence next morning as if it were a dream, she goes to her confessor,

who is at first incredulous, but when he perceives that she is.

telling the truth, he urges her to continue her virtuous life, gives
her holy water to drink, makes the magn of the cross upon her, and
commends her to God. The girl acts in accordance with his advice
and, leading a uniformly pious and irreproachable life, affords
the fiend no second opportunity. Hence the schemes of the devils
are brought to naught, for, when her child is born, he inherits
his father’s supernatural powers, but not his wickedness (p. 12).
~ When the mother’s pregnancy had been observed, she had been
arrested for unchastity, but the confessor had persuaded the judges
not to put her to death at once for this offense, but to keep her
in a tower until she had been delivered of her child. Immediately
after the child’s birth, he is baptized and named Merlin after his
mother’s father.

The excessively hairy body of the infant betrays his demonio
origin — still more, the power of speech which he displays as soon
as he is born, for as the mother weeps in expectation of her exe-
cution, he tells her that she will not suffer death on his account.
At the public trial of his mother, the marvellous child defends
her innocence and declares that he knows his own paternity much
better than the judge on the bench who expresses doubts about
the mother’s story knows his, and he establishes the truth of this
declaration by making the judge’s mother confess that the father
of the judge was not her lawful husband, but a priest. Merlin
now tells the judges that a fiend was his (Merlin’s) father.

After the trial was over, Merlin, who was not yet two years
old, dictates to a learned clerk, Blaise, an account of Joeeph of

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 315

Arimathea,‘ his companions, and the Grail — also, an account of the
devils’ plot to which he himself owed his existence. He later makes
a prediction about his own future and foretells, besides, that Blaise
will go to the region where the Grail company live and will there
continue to write down what Merlin will dictate to him. The
result of these dictations will finally be joined to the book of
Joseph (Robert de Boron’s Joseph) to form one book (p. 20).
Constant, an English king, has three sons, Maines (Moyne),
Uther, and Pandragon (Pendragon). He, also, has an ambitious
and unprincipled seneschal, named Vertig(i)er (Vortigern). Maines
succeeds his father, but when he is defeated by the Saxons, his
barone want Vertiger in his place, and, incited -by the seneschal,
kill their sovereign, in order that Vertiger may become king. When
Vertiger is proclaimed king, the guardians of Uther and Pandragon
take the young princes to an easterly land, whence their ancestors
had come. In pretended anger, Vertiger now slays the men who
had killed Maines, and a civil war between him and their friends
ensues. He allies himself with the Saxons and marries the daughter
of their chieftain Augis (Hangus=Hengist )— who is, later, killed.
For his protection he wishes to build a strong tower, but the
structure will not stand and his wise clerks are unable to fathom
the cause. Each clerk, however, learns in a vision that a father-
less child, seven years old, is to be the cause of his (the clerk’s)
death. Accordingly, to save their own lives, they all agree to
report that the foundations of the tower will never prove stable
until they have been drenched with the blood of such a child as
has just been described. The messengers who are sent forth to
discover this child, after a long search, come upon Merlin and
learn from him that he is the object of their search (p. 25). —
Merlin now goes to Vertiger with the messengers, giving, en route,
proofs of his supernatural powers, whilst Blaise retires to Nor-
thumberland. When Merlin arrives at the tower, he tells Vertiger

“ Sommer’s text here (p. 19) includes Nascien, but this is cer-
tainly a late insertion for Nascion was, indisputably, the creation of
the author of the Estotre. Contrast with this the reading of the
Huth-Merlin, I, 31.

Google

316 Evolution of Arthurian Romance .

how the clerks are planning to kill him, in order to save their own
lives, but asserts that the true cause of the instability of the tower
is a body of water about its foundations with a red and white dragon
in it — each of the creatures being under a big stone. When the
water is drawn off and the stones removed, the two dragons, just
as Merlin had predicted, fight each other and both perish in the
struggle (p. 33). Merlin explains, moreover, that the red dragon
signified Vertiger and the white one Constant’s sons and that these
sons will be invading the kingdom in three days and that Vertiger
will fall in the ensuing war. The prophecy is fulfilled and Ver-
tiger is consumed in the flames of the above-mentioned tower,
whereupon Pandragon becomes king. — Hearing of Merlin’s
remarkable powers of divination, the new monarch sends for him.
The magician, however, meets the royal messengers as a beggar and
says that the king must come to Merlin. Pandragon, accordingly,
goes to Northumberland, and Merlin meets him at different times
in different shapes (pp.. 38f.). After this (pp. 40-43), the
magician plays many more similar tricks upon Pandragon and
Uther. In admiration of his wisdom, they want him to stay with
them, and he consents — with the proviso, bowever, that he will
have to be absent very often. Shortly after this the king, as ad-
vised by Merlin, concludes peace with the Saxons on condition
that they shall evacuate the country. — A baron, jealous of Mer
lin’s influence with the king, disputes the enchanter’s wisdom,
and, in order to test him, in three different disguises, asks Merlin
in what manner he (the baron) is to die. The baron is triumphant
when each time Merlin gives a different reply, apparently irre-
concilable with the others, but soon he loses his life in a manner
that shows that the contradiction was only apparent (p. 47).6 —
The magician now retires to Northumberland to dictate an ac-
count of these recent happenings to Blaise. In the meanwhile,
the king is so struck with Merlin’s prophetic powers that hence-
forth he has all of his predictions recorded. Thus the book of
Merlin’s Prophecies came into existence. — Merlin foretells the

* The motif of the triple prediction is found already in the Vita
Merlini. Cp. I, 1836—143, above, where the details are given.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 317

return of the Saxons to the land to avenge Augis (Hengist); he
predicts, also, the death of either the king or his brother in the
conflict. The Saxons do return, but at Salisbury are utterly
destroyed by the brothers, who follow the prophet’s sagacious ad-
vice, and Pandragon is killed in the battle, whereupon Uther —
adopting the name, Uther Pandragon — succeeds him (p. 52). —

Merlin by his art transfers from Ireland to the cemetery at Salis-
bury the great stones that are still there (i. e. the stones at Stone-
henge). He next tells Uther of the table of the Last Supper of
our Lord — likewise of the Grail table — and proposes that tha
king shall establish a third — the Round Table. The three tables
are to symbolize the Trinity (p. 54). Uther assents and the Round
Table is founded in Carduel on the day of Pentecost (Whitsunday ).
Merlin next selects fifty knights as the first company that are
to sit about it. He leaves vacant, however, one seat,* which is only
to be filled by the person (not yet born) who is to achieve the ad-
venture of the Grail. As a matter of fact, a knight who was so
rash as to try to occupy the vacant seat at once disappeared. —
In a great Christmas feast at Carduel, Uther falls in love with
Ygerne, wife of the Duke of Tintagel (Tintaiol), and through
one of his nobles, Ulfin (Urfin), vainly endeavors to seduce the
lady by presents and messages. Finally (p. 61), Ygerne tells
her husband of the affair and he hastily takes her back to his own
dominions. The king summons him to return to court, and, when
he refuses, makes war on him. The duke is successful in defending
one of hie castles against the king, whilst the duchess is in another
— Tintagel. The duke being still besieged, Uther rides to Tint-
agel, and having been made by Merlin’s art identical in appear-
ance with the duke, is able to penetrate Tintagel castle and beget
Arthur upon Ygerne (p. 68). On the day of Arthur’s conception,
his father promises Merlin that, as soon as the child is born, it
is to be turned over to the enchanter. When Uther now rides
back to the castle in which the duke has been besieged, he learns that
the latter has been killed. The king’s marriage to Ygerne follows

* This was to make the Round Table conform to the previous
tables, at each of which there had, also, been a vacant seat.

Google

318 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

one month later? and, at the same time, Lothe, king of Orcanie,
is married to a daughter (unnamed )* of Ygerne’s by her first hus-
band (p. 73). — When it becomes evident that Ygerne is going
to give birth to a child before one is due — reckoning from the
date of her marriage with Uther — she consents, in order to avoid
scandal, that the child, as soon as it is born, shall be turned over
to a person whom the king has selected. Thus the infant is at
once put into Merlin’s hands, and he, in turn, forthwith entrusts
it to an excellent man named Antor (Auctor) to bring up (p. 76).
The little boy is baptized with the name of Arthur (Artus). —
In a new war with the Saxons Uther is slain and the land is left
without a legitimate king. Merlin, however, advises the barons
that, if they will assemble at Christmas, God will provide a proper
successor to the crown. They adopt his advice and when they
have come together at the appointed time, they behold before the
church a block of stone with an anvil on it and in the anvil
a sword fixed (p. 81). An inscription on the sword declared that
the person who could draw it from the anvil would be king. The
barons, week after week, try to achieve this, but none are success-
ful. One day, at last, young Arthur, who has been sent by his
foster-brother, Kay, to obtain a sword for him, after seeking one
in vain, happens to pass by the stone and anvil and draws the sword
from the latter, and gives it to Kay, who now claims to have
performed this feat, himself. Kay finally, however, is compelled
to confess the truth and restore the sword to the anvil. — Autor
reveals to Arthur that the latter is not his son and makes him
promise that, when he becomes king, he will appoint Kay his
sencechal. — Again Arthur draws the sword from the anvil, but.

" For the variant, “deux mois”, cp. Huth-Merlin, I, 120.

° By way of digression, it is here said that from this daughter
issued Gawain, Agravain, Guerrehes, Gaheries and Mordred — also,
Morgan la Fee. Both Sommer’s text (p. 73) and the Huth-Merlin
credit Loth with another daughter. The former does not name her;
the latter states that she was a bastard named Morgan(s), Morgan la
Fee being called Morgue in this text. These are, of course, merely
the oblique and nominative forms, respectively, of the same name. For
such doublets, cp. Bruce, MPh., XVI, 67f.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 319

this time, in the presence of all the barons (p. 84). Nevertheless,
because of what they imagine to be his low birth, the barons continue
to postpone the coronation for many months, but, since in the
course of time they become convinced that he is worthy of the
crown, they at last permit the ceremony to be celebrated.

So far the prose rendering of Robert’s Merle. At this point®
& continuator takes up the narrative.

At the beginning of the continuation the vassal kings of
Arthur raise a revolt against him, because of his supposed humble
origin. Merlin, in vain, enlightens them in regard to this matter —
they persist in their rebellion. Arthur defeats them, but with a
view to future contingencies, on Merlin’s advice, he invites Ban
of Benoic (Iuancelot’s father) and Bohort of Gaunes (Lancelot’s
uncle) to come to his aid, which they do. The rebel kings renew
their attack and are again defeated. Moreover, whilst they are
thus engaged, their own lands are invaded by the Saxons. They
win a victory over the Saxons — especially through the valor
of Gawain and his brothers (sons of Lot, king of Orcanie, and
nephews of Arthur). In the meanwhile, adopting the counsel of
Merlin, who desired that he should marry Guinevere, only child
of Leodegan king of Carmelide (apparently in Scotland), Arthur,
accompanied by Ban, Bohort, the knights of the Round Table
etc., had gone to Carmelide to assist the king of that country
against the Saxons and against Rion, king of the giants. In the
battle which ensues near Carohaise, Arthur and his men put Leode-
gan’s enemies to flight. (Interpolated in these accounts of the
Saxon wars we have, pp. 128f., an account of how Arthur begot
Mordred upon his sister, Lot’s wife, neither knowing who the
other was — also, p. 149, how Leodegan on the same night begot
both the true and the false Guinevere, lying in succession with his
own wife and his seneschal’s wife, respectively.) Arthur is at-
tracted by Guinevere, who was the wisest, most beautiful and
beet beloved woman that had ever been in the land, with the
exception of Elaine sans per, wife of Persides of Gazewilte, and the

* Sommer, II, 88, line 19 and, Huth-Merlin, I, 147, line 1.

Google

320 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

daughter of Pelles de Listenois of Corbenic, niece of the Fisher
King (159).!° — More battles (near Arundel) between the Saxons
and the rebel kings, during which Saigremor, a prince of Con-
stantinople, after many encounters with the pagans, makes his way
safely to Camelot. In these conflicts Merlin plays a leading part,
availing himself often of his shape-shifting power, and resorting,
also, frequently to Blaise, who keeps a record of all that he (Merlin)
says. This motif of Merlin’s visits to Blaise and dictating to the
- latter accounte of his exploits runs all through the romance. Merlin
meets Viviane, daughter of a noble vavassor, named Dyonas (a
godson of the goddess, Diana), by a fountain in the forest, and
astounds her with his magical powers, through which he calls up
before her eyes phantom knights and ladies amusing themselves in
a beautiful orchard (209). She promises her love to the en-
chanter, on condition that he shall teach her some of his tricks
of magic.

After this Merlin returns to Leodegan’s court, prophesies alle-
gorically Lancelot’s birth, and brings about the marriage of Arthur
and Guinevere (217). Arthur and his men now have a battle
with Rion and the Saxons and defeat them. In this battle Arthur
engages in personal combat with Rion, and, aided by Ban, over-
comes him and captures his sword.

Guinebaut (brother of Bohort), who is skilled in enchant-
ments, for the sake of a lady whom he loves, establishes the marvel
of the knights and ladies who are to dance unceasingly until the
knight who has never been false in love (Lancelot) breaks the
spell — likewise, another marvel, viz. self-playing chessmen, whom
no one, save the same knight, can checkmate (244'ff.).

Gawain and his companions come to meet Arthur. The latter
confers on him the highest rank in the kingdom next to himself —
dubs him knight, also, and presents him with his own sword,
Excalibur (253). During the festivities, Morgan le Fay makes
Merlin’s acquaintance and learns from him many of his crafts
(254).

‘© On this passage cp. Brace, MPh., XVI, 387ff. (1918) and
RR, IX, 256ff. (1918).

Google ek ee

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 321

Arthur, accompanied by Merlin, Gawain and his army, now
crosses the sea to aid Ban of Benoic in the defense of the latter’s
kingdom, which has been invaded by Claudas de la Deserte, Froille
d’Alemaigne, and others. The fighting takes place at Trebes, on
the river Loire (260). After a long struggle Ban’s enemies are
compelled to retreat with great losses and Claudas’s own dominions
are ravaged. Ban’s consort (Helaine) has an allegorical dream
of Arthur’s future conflict with Galehaut and the part which her
son, Lancelot, was destined to play in it. The dream is partially ©
interpreted by Merlin (279f.). Arthur and his allies go back to
Great Britain, whilst Merlin goes to the court of Julius Caesar.
Here he displays his supernatural powers in the Grisandole affair."
New battles occur between the rebel kings and the Saxons, in which
the former get the worst of it. In Carmelide now Arthur weds
Guinevere, and there follows a great tournament in which Gawain
distinguishes himself most. The night of the wedding the rela-
tives of the false Guinevere try to abduct the true Guinevere and
substitute the false one as the bride. Merlin, however, brings the
conspiracy to naught (808ff.) and the false Guinevere is exiled,
together with the chief conspirator, Bertholais. When Arthur is
returning to Logres with his bride, Lot, wishing to seize Guine-
vere, in order that he may recover his own wife by exchange, at-
tacks him with a large force of men, but is unhorsed by his own
son, Gawain. The identity of father and son, being revealed to
each other, Gawain compels Lot to make his peace with Arthur and
swear allegiance to him. A great feast is held at Logres, and here
Arthur takes his oath that he will not sit down to dinner until
some adventure is reported to him (320).12 The knights of the
Round Table vow that they will aid any damsel in distress. Gawain
and his companions are accepted as the quecn’s knights and four
clerks are appointed to chronicle their adventures. During the

** Sommer, H, 281ff. For an analysis of this episode see

I. 148 ff., above.

** For a list of occurrences of this motif in Arthurian romance
see R. Zenker, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XLV". 102ff. (1917). He
cites sixteen romances in which it occurs.

Hefperia, Ergdngungsreihe: 9. 21

Google

322 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

tournament between the knights of the Round Table and the
Queen’s knights that follows, the former violate their agreement
as to the kind of weapons that were to be used and the affair
turns into a serious conflict. The aggressors are defeated and
Gawain’s wrath against them is appeased with difficulty through
Guinevere’s influence. — News of the arrival of the Holy Grail
now spreads through Logres (334f.). Lot, accompanied by his
sons, goes to the rebel kings to negotiate a reconciliation between
them and Arthur. On the way, the Saxons, under King Clarion,
attack him, but Gawain strikes down Clarion and takes possession
of his famous horse, Gringalet (341). Lot and his sons, having
rested at the house of a forester, named Minoras, proceed on their
journey. They rescue from the Saxons Eliezer, Pelles’s son, who
was on his way to seek service under Gawain. Soon. after this
Gawain and Eliezer rescue a knight and a sister of the Lady
of Roestoc from five scoundrels who had assailed them in the
forest. They also aid Escan to vanquish the Saxons near Cam-
benic. Lot induces the rebel kings to declare a truce with Arthur
(387).

Merlin summons knights from both Great and Little Britain
to meet on Salisbury Plain. In the interim there had been a renewal
of the clashes between the Queen’s knights and the knights of
the Round Table. The Saxons, hearing of the above-mentioned
gathering of the hosts on Salisbury Plain, assemble near Clarence.
There are battles near Garlot and Clarence between the Christians
and the Saxons, in which the latter are severely defeated and driven
out of the country (401). Merlin, Gawain, and Eliezer (who is
dubbed knight by Gawain) are all prominent in these battles.
Ban and Bohort start for home and pass by Agravadain’s castle.
Here Merlin brings about the cohabitation of Ban and Agravadain’s
wife, through which Hector is engendered.

Rion renews the war against Leodegan and desires to add
Arthur’s beard to the beards of the other kings that already adorn
his mantle (412). Merlin, in the guise of a minstrel, appears
at a great feast at Camelot. He summons the knights together
and there ensues a battle between Rion and Arthur's men. Arthur

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 323

accepts Rion’s challenge to a duel and kills him, whereupon the
dead king’s followers do homage to the victor.

Merlin goes to Jerusalem and expounds a strange dream of
King Flualis there. He next visits Viviane and imprudently be-
trays more of his secrets to her. Thence he returns to Logres,
just when a beautiful lady arrives there with an ugly dwarf and
tricks Arthur into dubbing the latter. Luces, emperor of Rome,
sends an arrogant letter to Arthur, demanding tribute. Arthur
resents it, crosses the Channel, slays the giant of Mont St. Michel,
who is clad in an impenetrable serpent’s skin, and is joined by Ban
and Bohort (431). Gawain, Ivain and Saigremor are sent as mes-
sengers to Rome, where, owing to Gawain’s bold words, they get
into a fight in the emperor’s presence. After Gawain has struck
off tho head of the emperor’s nephew, he and his companions are
chased back to Arthur’s camp.

There is next an engagement between the Romans and Arthur's
host, which ends in the slaying of the emperor and the flight of
his men. Arthur now has his fight with the terrible cat of the
Lake of Lausanne.'* News is brought to him of Leodegan’s death.
He returns to Logres and is joyfully received by Guinevere.

Merlin informs Arthur that he (Merlin) must leave him for-
ever (450). Ho tells Blaise the same thing, saying that he is going
to Viviane. Despite Blaise’s protest, he departs. Viviane, through
blandishments, induces Merlin to impart to her secrets of witch-
craft by which she will be able to imprison a man forever. The
first use she makes of this knowledge is to put Merlin, himeelf,
under the spell. He imagines that he is in a bed in a beautiful
tower, and remains forever under the spell in this spot — in the
forest of Broceleande — where Viviane henceforth constantly vi-
sits him. :

Gawain and thirty knights go in search of Merlin, cach knight
riding in a different direction (453). There follow now adventures
of the dwarf, mentioned above, who overcomes various knights,
and, according to custom, sends them to Arthur’s court. Gawain,

*® On this episode (Sommer, I, 441ff.) cp. I, 41, note 9, above.
21*

Google

324 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

being in a revery, fails to salute a damsel whom he meets in the
woods, and she pronounces as his punishment that he will for
a time resemble the first man that he meets. This turns out to
be the dwarf, who, himself, at the same instant recovers his natural
form. Gawain, disconsolate on account of his transformation, de-
cides to return to the court, and, in doing 80, passes the place where
Merlin is imprisoned. Merlin relates what has befallen him and
declares that Gawain is the last person that will ever hear him
speak (461). Gawain next rescues the damsel who was the cause
of his transformation from two knights who are attacking her,
and she restores him to his true form. The attack, however, had
been pre-arranged as a test of Gawain. The former dwarf (Eva-
deam) becomes a knight of the Round Table.

3. Lancelot".

Ban has a son, first called Galahad and afterwards Lancelot.
Claudas makes war upon him (Ban), with the help of the Romans,
who thus conquer Gaul and capture the city of Benoic. The last
city that Ban possessed (Trebes) is betrayed into the hands of
the enemy by his deneschal (466). i

Claudas of ‘‘la terre deserte” (Berri), which had been devastated
by Aramont (Hoel), King of Lesser Britain, and Uterpendragon,
makes war against his neighbor, King Ban of Benoic (Benoyc).
Encouraged by a treacherous seneschal, Ban goes to Logres to seek
Arthur's aid. As soon as he has gone, the seneschal surrenders
Trebes (Ban’s castle) to Claudas, who only takes possession, how-
ever, after a stout resistance on the part of Banin, Ban’s godchild.
Moreover, the treacherous seneschal is killed by Banin to the great
joy even of Claudas. Ban had not proceeded far when he ob-
served that Trebes, which Claudas had just occupied, was in flames.
His heart breaks from gricf at this culminating misfortune and
he dies. His wife (Elaine), learning of his death, lays her little
boy (Lancelot) down by a neighboring lake and goes to her hus-
band, but before she can return, she sees a fairy plunge into the

The romance fills vols. 3, 4, 5 in Sommer's series.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 325

lake with the child in her arms. The sorrowful queen accepts
now the invitation of a passing abbess to go with her to her con-
vent, takes the veil, and becomes the head of the convent. Two
days after Ban, King Bohort of Gannes (Ban’s brother), dies,
and his widow (Queen Evaine) flies from Claudas with her two
little sons, Lionel and Bohort. Pharien, a nobleman who had been
at enmity with her husband, seizes all three and is about to take
them to Claudas, when, moved by her lamentations and by gra-
titude for a former favor, he resolves to retain the boys and bring
them up himself. Evaine joins her sister (Elaine) and also be-
comes a nun (p. 19).

We are told now of Merlin’s demon birth and of how the
Lady of the Lake — the fairy who carried off the infant Lance-
lot — had beguiled him and imprisoned him forever through a
spell which she had learned from him.'® The lake was not a real
one, but merely an illusion designed to conceal the fairy’s abode (22).

Pharien’s wife, who is Claudas’s paramour, informs the latter
as to the true identity of the two boys whom her husband is keep-
ing. Pharien is about to return the boys to their mother, when
Claudas begs him to retain them and promises to return to them
their inheritance as soon as they are of age. He complies with
the request of Claudas, who is now master of both Benoic and
Gannes. .

Two years later Claudas plans a war against Arthur, and, in
disguise, visits the court of that monarch, in order to discover
from direct observation the extent of the latter’s power. Hoe and
his companion are much impressed with Arthur’s court (33).

Lancelot grows up in the fairy’s palace, gentle, generous, and
brave. A friar (Adragain) informs the queens in the convent
that their sons are alive. He goes also to Arthur’s court to solicit
his aid on behalf of theee children and Arthur promises to redress
their wrongs, as soon as he has quelled his rebellious barons.

Saraide, the friar’s niece, goes as a messenger of the Lady

*® The version of the “enserrement Merlin” in the Vulgate Merlin
(Sommer, II, 450 ff.) is, doubtless, based on this passage. Cp. pp. 312ff,,
above.

Go ogle

326 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

of the Lake to Claudas’s court and upbraids him with keeping
Bohort’s sons prisoners. Claudas, feeling the reproach, sends for
the boys. When they are received at court, Lionel, self-willed
and fearless, strikes Claudas in the face and knocks him down.
He and Bohort also kill Claudas’s worthless son (Dorin). Saraide
converts the boys into greyhounds and two greyhounds into the
semblance of the boys, and the former are thus enabled to escape
and take refuge with the Lady of the Lake (57). Knights and
citizens, led by Pharien and his nephew (Lambegue), demand the
supposed children — really enchanted greyhounds — of Claudas,
who, refusing them, is besieged in his palace. Wounded and de-
feated, Claudas surrenders the supposed boys, who, at the moment,
however, that the real boys are disenchanted, assume their natural
form as dogs. The people believe that Claudas is playing a trick
upon them and has really killed the children. Pharien, however,
credits his protestations of innocence and takes his side in the fight
that ensues — also, later, when arms have been laid aside, pro-
tects him against the treachery of Lambegue and others (77) and
gets him to a place of safety.

Lionel and Bohort long for their masters, Pharien and Lam-
begue, and the Lady of the Lake sends a damsel for them. The
people imprison Pharien, because of Claudas’s escape. Learning
from the damsel that the boys are safe, he advises that Lambegue
and a trustworthy knight (Leonce of Paerne) be sent to them.
He himself is to remain a prisoner until the people are satisfied
that the young princes are alive. Happy meeting of the two
knights with the children at the Lady of the Lake’s and touches
that reveal the noble disposition of the child, Lancelot. The people
rejoice when they are convinced that Lionel and Bohort are safe,
but, distrusting Pharien’s relations with Claudas, still keep him
in prison (p. 91). Claudas, breaking his promise to Pharien, be-
sieges Gannes, and, when unarmed, is assailed by Lambegue, who
later, however, to save the town, voluntarily gives himself up to
Claudas. Peace now is concluded. Pharien goes to the Lake, is
reproached by Lionel for not having come earlier, and dies there.

When Lancelot is eighteen years old, the Lady of the Lake,

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 327

in great sorrow, has to prepare to let him seek admission into the
order of knighthood. She first instructs him at length in regard
to the high requirements of that order (pp. 112ff.). Crossing over
to Great Britain with Lancelot, his two cousins (Lionel and Bohort)
and others, on the way to Arthur’s court, she meets the king in
a wood near Camelot and asks him to dub Lancelot on St. John’s
Day. He consents, and the fairy, after warning the youth to say
that he does not know his name and, when once knighted, to com-
mence his adventures without delay, returns home with Lionel,
Bohort, etc. Lancelot accompanies Arthur to Camelot, meets
Guinevere for the first time, and is thrilled by her beauty. Arthur
gives Lancelot the accolade, but before he can gird the sword on
the youth, the latter has performed his first exploit, viz. saves
the life of a strange knight by drawing a sword and lance-heads out
of his wounds and vowing, at the same time, to revenge him on
all who might aver that they loved the man who inflicted the
wounds better than the man who suffered them. (For the sequel
to this fantastic vow cp. pp. 174, 198, 208). Immediately after
this follows Lancelot’s second adventure: The Lady of Nohaut,
being besieged by the King of Northumberland, asks Arthur for
succor. After much urging, Arthur permits the young knight
to try the adventure. On his departure, the queen grants his
petition that he might be allowed to call himself her knight, wher-
ever he went. En route to rescue the Lady of Nohaut, he wins
three damsels in combat, requires a vanquished opponent to con-
duct them to Arthur’s court and bring him back a sword from the
Queen. When he has girded this on, he is a full-fledged knight
(137). Lancelot and Kay (Kex) overthrow the two champions of
Northumberland, who now make peace.

Lancelot passes by the tomb of Leucan, nephew of Joseph
of Arimathea, vanquishes a knight at the Queen’s Ford, and begins
the adventure of Dolorous Gard (143). Only the best knight
living. can do away with the evil cuetoms and enchantments of
this strong castle (on the Humber). Lancelot overcomes all ob-
stacles and is master of the castle. In a cemetery nearby there
is a tomb with the inscription: “This slab will be raised by the

Google

328 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

hand of no man save the one who shall conquer this dolorous castle,
and his namo is written beneath it.’”’ Lancelot lifts the slab, reads
the inecription beneath, which runs: “Here will lie Lancelot of
the Lake, son of King Ban of Benoyce” (152). Arthur and his
court are amazed at the news of Lancelot’s conquest and Gawain
sets out to join him. After Lancelot’s success the people entered
the cemetery and put inscriptions — some true, some false — on
the tombs. One of the latter causes a rumor that Lancelot was
dead to be spread abroad. Gawain, Arthur and others were de-
ceived thereby. Arthur and Guinevere go to Dolorous Gard and
are deceived there by still other false inscriptions into the belief that
Gawain and his companions were, also, dead. Asa matter of fact,
Brandus des Illes had treacherously lured them into a castle on an
island in the Humber and shut them up there. Lancelot forces
Brandus to give them up to him (167). He next receives the king
and queen at Dolorous Gard, betrays his love for the latter by
his absentmindedness and rides away, at the same time, sending
Gawain and his companions, who do not know of their deliverer’s
identity, to thank the king and queen there the next day for
what he (Lancelot) had done. On entering the castle, the royal
pair are cautioned that they must not speak to anybody in it.
Arthur accepts Gawain’s advice to challenge the roi d’outre
les marches de Galone to an assembly in September and Gawain,
himself, goes in quest of his deliverer (171). Lancelot, sncogntto,
learns that the queen has summoned him and other knights to
this assembly. After some minor adventures he arrives at the place
of assembly. On the day of the conflict he puts on red armor,
to keep from being recognized, performs striking feats of arms,
but, being seriously wounded, is carried from the field. The as-
sembly is to be renewed at a later date. The same evening Lancelot
has himself borne away, after having been visited by Gawain,
who does not learn, however, until the former has departed that
this is the person whom he is seeking. Whilst Lancolot was on
this journey, the Lady of Nohaut finds him sleeping under an elm
(182) and takes him to her castle. Gawain Icarns from Brun(s)
sans Pitie, whom he has overcome in combat, where Lancelot is,

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 329

but Lancelot will not receive him, and Gawain’s effort, under the
guidance of a damsel, to discover Lancelot’s name from the in-
scription on. the underside of the slab of the tomb at Dolorous Gard
ig vain, since he cannot lift this slab. Gawain has experience of
the treachery of Brun (p. 187, and, later, pp. 193ff.).

Lancelot hears from a squire that the Queen is a captive at
Dolorous Gard and that no one but the conqueror of that castle
can liberate her. On arriving there, however, Lancelot is, him-
self, made captive and is only freed when he promises to termi-
nate the enchantments of the place. He ought to have remained
forty days at the castle after conquering it. Lancelot ends the
enchantments and henceforth the castle is called Joyous Gard
(192).

The assembly is renewed, Lancelot (tmcognito), Gawain and
his brothers being participants in it. A girl tells Gawain Lancelot’s
true name (196), which thus becomes known for the first time at
Arthur’s court. After the fight, by chance, Lancelot finds him-
self the guest of a knight whom his fantastic vow (see Sommer
III, 127) requires him to fight. Both men lament the unfortu-
nate situation, but the host is bound by a similar vow. In the
fight Lancelot elays his adversary, but weeps over the necessity
(199). — Arthur has allegorical dreams portending a misfortune
near at hand and the interpretation offered by his clerks is very
obscure (200).

Lancelot is so immersed in a revery concerning the queen that
he hears no one, until he is prodded.

Arthur refuses Galehaut’s (Galehot’s) summons to become his
man (201). On seeing the queen, Lancelot is so fascinated that
he lets his horse go where he will. The animal takes him into
the river and he is almost drowned (203). Daguenet, a foolish
knight, led Lancelot’s horse to Guinevere and pretended to have
unhorsed the rider. The voice of the queen throws Lancelot again
into a state of unconsciousness and his brief answers to questions
are spoken as in a maze (205). He repeats this conduct later on
(pp. 214, 237).

Lancelot, having killed the son of the Lady of Malehaut’s

Google

330 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

seneschal, voluntarily surrenders himself and is imprisoned by her
(210). Galehaut invades Arthur’s kingdom. There are two as-
semblies (jousts) between their hosts. The Lady of Malohaut
(Malahaut) allows Lancelot to take part in these assemblies on his
promising to disclose his name to her soon and to return to prison.
To preserve his incognito, he uses in each assembly armor of a
different color (red, black and white, successively). When he leaves
the first assembly, Gawain and forty knights go in quest of him
(226ff.). In the meanwhile, a holy man (pp. 215ff.) rebukes
Arthur for his sins, gives him good moral advice, and interprets
the above-mentioned allegorical dreams (cp. pp. 199ff.). In the
second assembly Lancelot’s achievements excite Galehaut’s ad-
miration to such a degree that, twice, when the former loses his
horse, Galehaut, though his foe, lends him his own (242f.) and,
after the joust is over, entertains him (244f.). The two become
devoted friends and the next day Lancelot puts on Galehot’s armor.
But when Arthur and Gawain are filled with anxiety at the im-
pending encounter with the superior host of the enemy, Galehaut,
moved by his lovo for Lancelot, goes to Arthur, kneels down before
him and begs forgiveness (249). The King is, of course, over-
joyed at this turn in events. When Galehaut goes back to his host,
he finds that Lancelot had spent the night in restlessness and
grief (on account of his passion for Guinevere). The next day the
king and queen learn that it was the black knight of the second
assembly who had brought about the peace between Galehaut and
Arthur (253). The queen, now much in love with Lancelot, ar-
ranges, through Galehaut, a meeting that evening with him. She
is accompanied to the rendezvous by Galehaut, the Lady of Malo-
haut and her attendant damsel, Lore de Carduel. Here Lancelot
confesses to Guinevere that he has loved her since he first saw her,
but, from timidity, does not ask her any favor. She kisses him
(263). She allows Galehaut to continue the friend of her lover
and Galehaut learns now for the first time from her the name of his
friend (hitherto withheld by Lancelot himself). The Lady of Malo-
haut acknowledges that she loved Lancelot, when he was her
prisoner, but that he did not reciprocate her affection (p. 266).

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 331

Now, on a hint which she gives to the queen, the latter brings
Galehaut and herself together and the two become sworn lovers.
Evening meetings of the four, after this, were frequent.

Galehaut now takes Lancelot with him to his kingdom, Sore-
lois, which is accessible only by two passages (269ff.). After re-
turning to his own country, Arthur is plunged in a deep revery
and in sorrow, because his knights had broken the vow which they
had made after the first assembly not to cease their quest for
the red knight of that contest (Lancelot), until they had found
him (273). Gawain is told by Guinevere where Lancelot is and
with nineteen other knights starts on the new quest, each going
in a different direction. Gawain meets Hector and an insulting
dwarf. Hector exhibits his prowess in various commonplace fights
and Gawain delivers the Lady of Roestoc from her importunate
suitor, Segurades (292ff.). This lady goes to court and takes with
her Segurades, Hector, the dwarf, and the dwarf’s niece, who is
her cousin and Hector’s lady-love. With great difficulty the queen
and the Lady of Roestoc persuade the cousin to permit Hector to
go in search of the knight who had delivered the Lady of Roestoc.
A maiden brings from the Lady of the Lake a cleft shield which
would never join together, until the love of the knight and lady
(Lancelot and Guinevere) depicted on it attains its consummation.
In the meanwhile Gawain had achieved different adventures among
them, the saving of a knight afflicted with sores (through the oint-
ment of a damsel) who turns out to be his own brother, Agravain
— by furnishing some of his blood to bathe him in (315). To
complete his cure the blood of the other best knight in the world
(Lancelot) was also necessary. This was obtained later (p. 405).

Hector’s adventures in quest of Gawain: he humbles Guinas
de Blakestan, who is unjustly jealous of his sweetheart (325), un-
horses the nephew of the lord of Falerne and his companion, suc-
cors Sinados de Windesores, whose wife’s relatives warred upon
him, because she had married him without their consent, comes to
‘“L’Estroite Marche,” where the custom prevailed that any knight
hospitably received there had to devote half a day to the defence
of the castle (337). Hector vanquishes Marganor, at the castle by

Google

332 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

courtesy as well as valor and frees Yvain and Sagremor, who had
been captured by Marganor (349). The lord of the castle and
his daughter want Hector to marry the latter. He refuses, but
at his departure the girl gives him a magic ring which makes the
receiver love the donor. Through the machinations of a dwarf
Hector is imprisoned at Les Mares (355). He had killed one of
the sons of the lord of this castle and saved another (Ladomas).

Lancelot in Sorelois being love-sick for Guinevere, Galehaut
contrives a plan for his seeing her (357). In the meanwhile Gawain
resumes the quest for Lancelot and learns from a hermit where
his friend is. At Leverzerp he takes the side of the Duke of
Cambeninc against the King of Norgales, because his party is the
weaker — overcomes Gifflet, but the two then together assail
the men of Norgales and defeat them (364). They meet two girls,
one of whom repels Gawain’s advances and the other accepts Gif-
flet’s. The former (who loves Sagremor) promises Gawain, how-
ever, to lead him to her mistress, who is far more beautiful then
herself. Gawain champions successfully the cause of a vavassor
who had been falsely accused by a seneschal; in a combat recovers
Lionel’s horse for him from a knight. (It was not permissible for
Lionel, a mere squire, to fight with a knight.) Lionel eludes Ga-
wain’s questions as to Lancelot’s whereabouts (377). Gawain res-
cues Sagremor, whose peculiarities are described (381) and the
latter is united with the girl who loves him. This girl takes them
to the castle of the king of Norgales and that night guides Gawain
to the chamber of the king’s daughter. The king detects Gawain
in bed with his daughter and tries to have him slain. With the as-
sistance of the princess and Sagremor’s amie, after some fighting,
he and Sagremor escape.

Hearing that Hector was in prison at Les Mares, the lord
of |’Estroite Marche, accompanied by Sinados and Marganor, set
out to liberate him, but already he had been freed, in order that
he might rescue Helaine sans Per, whose husband required her to
prove her assertion, uttered in 8 moment of anger, that her beauty
was superior to his bravery. Having vindicated the truth of the
lady’s assertion, Hector proceeds in quest of Gawain.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 333

Scotland being invaded by the Saxons and Irish (894), Arthur
summons his hosts together. This gives the queen an opportunity
to call Lancelot and Galehaut from Sorelois. They were to keep
incognito, but Lancelot was to wear favors presented by the queen.
Gawain conquers the entrance to Sorelois named the Pont Norgalois,
and, as required by custom, has to defend it. Thus he and Hector
fight, neither knowing the other. When he learns that Hector
is his opponent, out of courtesy, he declares himself beaten: To
keep Lancelot from fighting at the same place, Galehaut takes him
to his own retreat in the Ile Perdue (399). Gawain and Hector
force their way into this retreat and combat Lancelot and the King
of the Hundred Knights, respectively. Both sides keep their names
secret and do not recognize each other, until Lionel arrives on -the
scene, discloses Gawain’s identity to Lancelot, and warns him that
the queen has ordered that he (Lancelot) should show Gawain every
consideration (403). Terror-stricken at having unwittingly dis-
obeyed the queen’s command, Lancelot fled from the field, but
afterwards, on Galehaut’s representations, kneeled down before Ga-
wain and implored his mercy.

Lancelot, Galehaut, Gawain and Hector now join Arthur's
army in Scotland and fight against the Saxons and Irish, who
arc worsted. The sight of Guinevere almost causes Lancelot to
fall from his horse and he obeys her every wish. Camille, an en-
chantress of Saxon descent, who loves Arthur, entices him to a
secret interview and imprisons him and his companion, Guerrehes.
The same night Lancelot lies for the first time with Guinevere
(411), and Galehaut with the Lady of Malehaut. The cleft in
the shield sent by the Lady of the Lake closes, as the union of
Lancelot and Guinevere is consummated. Camille entraps still
further Lancelot, Galehaut, Gawain, and Hector, but releases the
first, when he becomes insane. He returns to court and always
obeys the queen, but continues demented until the Lady of the
Lake comes and heals him (417). — Nine days after her departure,
Lancelot, having enjoyed Guinevere’s love, returns to the battle,
in which Yvain and Yder had been the chief representatives of
Arthur, and slays the giant Hagodabran, the mightiest of the

Go ogle

334 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Saxon warriors (423). He desists from the fight, however, when
Lionel orders him to do so in Guinevere’s name. Afterwards, cap-
turing Camille’s tower, he liberates Arthur and the rest. On the
other hand, when Kay (Kex) destroys the books and boxes of
the enchantress, she commits suicide. Arthur and Guinevere both
shower favors on Lancelot and he consents to remain at court.
Moreover, Galehaut, who declares that he cannot live apart from
Lancelot, at his own request, is accepted as one of Arthur's com-
panions. So too is Hector, whose deeds of arms had also been
greatly lauded. These two knights, with Lancelot, took their seats
that day at the Round Table (429) and clerks were summoned to
record their adventures. Three days before All Saints’ Galehaut
takes his departure for Sorelois, being accompanied by Lancelot.
The queen, however, made them promise to be present at Camelot
on Christmas Day (430).

As Galehaut and Lancelot return to Sorelois,!* the former is
filled with fear lest the latter may be drawn away from him by
the queen. He relates then to Lancelot two allegorical dreams
which he has had, pre-figuring that event. As further omens
of impending misfortune, Galehaut sees his best castle, L’Orguel-
louse Emprise, collapse before his eyes, and learns soon afterwards
that in a single night the same thing had happened to all the other
castles in Sorelois. He sends to Arthur for three of the wisest
clerks to expound his dreams (IV, 10), and Arthur sends him ten,
of whom Helyes of Toulouse is the wisest (24). Helyes, whose
speech includes a prophecy concerning Galahad as the Grail Winner
(27), interprets Galehot’s dreams, and, among other things, makes
him understand that he (Galehaut) had only three years to live (34).

In the meanwhile, the court has been startled by a letter
from the false Guinevere,” accusing the true Guinevere of being
an impostor and of usurping her place as the king’s consort. She
demands that Arthur shall return the Round Table (received from

** Here begins Sommer's Vol. IV.
'7 Cp. analysis of the Vulgate Merlin, pp. 312ff., above.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 335

her father, Leodegan), if he will not take her as his rightful wife.
Gawain offers himself as the Queen’s champion against Bertholai,
champion of the false Guinevere. The king postpones a decision
in the matter until he holds court at Bedingran at Candlemas (16).
Galehaut soothes Lancelot’s grief over this affair by telling him
that, if Arthur now puts away Guinevere, he (Lancelot), will be
able to marry her and that he, himself (Galehaut), will bestow
Sorelois, the best of his kingdoms, on her (p. 17). In order to
qualify himself better for the crown, he resolves on spending much
time at Arthur’s court and appoints Baudemagus, king of Gorre,
regent in his absence. Gorre was accessible only by two bridges,
one beneath the water, the other a sword-bridge, and Baudemagus
had populated the land mainly with captives, seized whilst they
were attempting to cross these bridges (40f.) Meleagant, son of
Baudemagus, is envious of Lancelot and wounds him in a tourna-
ment at Camelot on Christmas Day. On this occasion the queen
has difficulty in disguising her passion for Lancelot (44).

The false Guinevere appears at Bedingran, according to the
agreement, lures Arthur into the forest for a boar-hunt, and there
he is captured by her men and carried off to Carmelide. She
thoroughly infatuates Arthur by her wiles (50). Nothing having
been heard of the king, the barons of Logres elect Gawain in his
place until his fate can be ascertained. The missing king des-
patches messengers to his court, who tell where he is. In conse-
quence, Guinevere, the barons, etc., go to Carmelide (54). There
Arthur, supported by the barons of Carmelide, makes public procla-
mation that the true Guinevere has deceived him and the false
Guinevere pleads that her rival may be put to death. Lancelot
now offers to defend the queen’s innocence in a judicial combat
against any three knights. Galehaut, however, compels him to
fight them singly (61) and he vanquishes all three. Urged by
Bertholai to do so, Arthur permits the queen to accept Galehaut’s
offer of the kingdom of Sorelois (69), but wishes, in vain, to
retain Lancelot. The queen goes to her new kingdom and re-
' ceives the homage of the barons there (72).

Arthur’s infatuation for the false Guinevere becomes worse

Google

336 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

than ever. Theo pope rebukes him for his conduct when he refuses
to take back the true Guinevere, and lays Great Britain under an
interdict. During this period both the false Guinevere and
Bertholai are visited with paralysis (73) and their bodies begin to
decay. Gawain’s reproaches touch Arthur’s conscience in the matter
of the false Guinevere, but he continues to pine for her until in
consequence of severe illness he receives the sacrament from his
former chaplain, Amustan(s), now a hermit who, also, exacts a
confession of sin from him. The false Guinevere and Bertholai
likewise, confess their fraud to Amustan(s), and afterwards to
Arthur and the barons. The true Guinevere goes back, reluctantly,
to her husband, having been in Sorelois two years and a half.
Both Guinevere and Galehaut desire to keep Lancelot with them.
After returning for a while to Sorelois, he yields to the former’s
request and stays at Arthur’s court. — Arthur holds a great court
at London. Whilst Gawain, Yvain, Lancelot and Galeshin are in
a forest of marvels nearby, Carados of the Dolorous Tower carries
off Gawain (88). His companions separately go in search of him.
Galeshin learns from a cousin — the Lady of the White Castle —
who Gawain’s captor is and how the Dolorous Tower can be pene-
trated; also, about a girl there, who will render him assistance. —
Lancelot lifts a wounded knight from a coffer as Yvain had failed
to do. This knight turns out to be the son of the wounded knight
(Trahan le Gai) of Lancelot’s first adventure (see I, 414, above).
He had been put in the coffer by Carados’s mother, an enchantress,
and only the best knight in the world could deliver him. — Yvain
rescues a squire, and, afterwards, with Lancleot’s aid, Sagremor
and his sweetheart, whom knights of Norgales were maltreating,
because of the latter’s share in Gawain’s affair with the prin-
cess of that kingdom. — Lionel endeavors to go in search of Lance-
lot, but is held back by Galehaut. — News of Gawain’s capture
is brought to the court by Trahan’s son, Melian(s), and Arthur
resolves to deliver his nephew (104). — Galeshin prepares him-
self for the adventure of the Dolorous Tower by attempting the
less difficult adventures of overcoming the four fencers of Puin-
tadol and lifting the spell from Escalon le Tenebreus, where, owing

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 337

to an act of fornication committed in the church seventeen years
before, the castle and church — but not the churchyard — had
remained enveloped in darkness. Galeshin succeeds in the first
adventure and fails in the second, which, however, is achieved by
Lancelot (111). — All this while Gawain had been a prisoner
in the Dolorous Tower, lying wounded in a dungeon, filled with
poisonous vermin. Moreover, Carados’s mother had envenomed his
wounds. A damsel, who requites Carados’s love with hate, kills
the vermin with poisoned: food and supplies Gawain with a heal-
ing ointment. — On the way to Carados’s stronghold were the
Chapel of Morgan (le Fay) and the enchanted valley, called ‘‘the
valley from which there is no return’ or ‘‘the valley of false
lovers” (117). Morgan had laid it under a spell, because she had
detected her lover there in an act of disloyalty to her with another
woman. This spell could be undone only by a knight who was never
false in love (Lancelot). Here Galeshin and Yvain became cap-
tives, but Lancelot slew the dragons and knights that guarded
the place and broke the spell that rested on it. Morgan, how-
ever, treacherously bound Lancelot, whilst asleep, and imprisoned
him. He will not give her, however, the ring presented to him
by Guinevere. She lets him out on parole, that he may parti-
cipate in the effort to free Gawain, but sends a girl with him,
who is to try to make him unfaithful to the queen. The plot,
however, fails. — Carados had left the Dolorous Tower, in order
to bar Arthur’s entry into the country through a certain narrow
pass and he is followed up by Lancelot. Yvain and Galeshin, on
the other hand, made ar. assault on the Dolorous Tower. Both,
however, were captured, and only the intercession of the damsel
who had befriended Gawain saved their lives (181). Lancelot at-
tacks Carados’s host from the rear and puts them to flight. He
pursues and wounds Carados, but in attempting to seize the latter,
both he and his enemy are borne within the precincts of Cara-
dos’s castle. Carados could only be slain by a sword which he had
committed to the above-mentioned damsel. This girl now gave
the sword to Lancelot, whose own weapon was broken. Carados,
seeing this act and knowing that he was doomed, tries at least,
Hefperia, Ergdngungsrethe: 9. 22

Google

338 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

to slay Gawain before he is, himself, slain, but Lancelot prevents
him and beheads him. He liberates his friends and they all go to
Arthur (with whom are Galehaut and Lionel) and present to him
Carados’s head and the keys of his castle. In compliance with
Lancelot’s petition, the king invests the damsel with the Dolorous
Tower, now called La Bele Garde or La Bele Prise, and she marries
Melian(s). — Lancelot goes back secretly to Morgan’s prison and
she, having drugged him, obtains possession (140) of the ring
which Guinevere had presented him with and sends her damsel
to court with the ring. This messenger announces there that Lance-
lot was mortally wounded at the Dolorous Tower and will. never
appear at court again. She also flings the ring into Guinevere’s
lap before the king and the rest: Lancelot, she affirms, had re-
turned it to the queen and exhorted the Knights of the Round
Table not to disgrace their lord, as he had done. The queen pro-
tests her innocence and Arthur declares that he would rather see
Lancelot Guinevere’s husband than lose his companionship (142).

Galehaut, Lionel, and Gawain endeavor to discover Lancelot’s
whereabouts by following Morgan’s messenger, but she slips away
from them. Galehaut finds Lancelot’s shicld hanging on a pine
at Escalon, takes it away, is wounded in combats with knights that
pursue him, and is cured at a monastery. — Insignificant adven-
tures of Gawain and Yvain, during which a friar warns the former
not to travel Saturday afternoon, save when it is unavoidable. —
Lionel is falsely informed that a fresh grave is that of Lancelot
recently killed, but another damsel takes him to a place whence he
can see Lancelot alive, and thence guides him to the monastery
where Galehaut was healed, but Galehaut had gone. — Morgan
tried to make Lancelot forget the queen, by drugging him into
strange dreams, but in vain. When he threatened to starve him-
self to death, she released him. — Lionel finds Galehaut and ac-
companies him to Sorelois. Later they return to Arthur's court.
Gawain and Yvain find Lancelot, too, fighting incognito in e
tournament and bring the news to the king. Lancelot seeks Gale-
haut in Sorelois and misses him. Crazed with distress, he fled
in the night in the scantiest attire and was soon reported dead.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 339

When Galehaut hears this report, he will not eat for eleven days
and finally from grief and disease expires. His nephew, Gale-
haudin, succeeds him (155).18

The Lady of Malehaut died soon after for love of Galehaut. —
The Lady of the Lake discovers the mad Lancelot in the forest
of Tintagel in Cornwall, cures him, and equips him with horse and
arms. The queen still disbelieves the report of her lover's death. —
Meleagant comes to court to challenge (the absent) Lancelot, de-
clares that he will surrender the exiles of Gorre, if he is allowed
to take Guinevere into the forest and maintain his possession of
her against any knight. Kay (Kex) manages to secure the office
of the queen’s champion and is defeated, but Lancelot, who had
witnessed the combat, sets out to rescue Guinevere. The killing
of Lancelot’s horses (one of them obtained from Gawain) prevents
him from freeing her and he is compelled to continue the pursuit
in a cart, although it was disgraceful for a knight to ride in such
a vehicle (162) and he was therefore scoffed at and pelted with
mud on the journey. At a castle near the boundary of Melagant’s
land he undergoes the adventure of the Perilous Bed (a fiery lance
thrust towards the bed) and the next morning almost swoons when
he sees Guinevere from his window. Gawain, who had joined him
on the road, recognizes from this for the first time that the dejected
knight is Lancelot. A damsel of the castle, on condition that
they should, each, grant the first gift she might claim, shows
them the two roads to the Terre Foraine (Baudemagus’s king-
dom) — one leading to the “pont perdu,” the other to the “pont
d’espee.’’ Gawain takes the first, Lancelot the second. The damsel,
who is anxious to discover Lancelot’s identity, intercepts him en
route and entertains him at a house where she tests both his courage
and his continence. He emerges successful from both tcsts and
overthrows a knight who has recently extorted a comb from Guine-
vere as toll for being permitted to pass over a causeway through
a certain marsh. The sight of his mistress’s hair in this comb,
throws Lancelot into such an ecstasy that he almost swoons (172).

Having been halted by the damsel’s suitor for a while, Lancelot

*® Here begins the prose adaptation of Chrétien's Lancelot.
92%

Google

340 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

comes to a monastery. In the adjacent cemetery is the tomb of
King Galahad, son of Joseph of Arimathea: Lancelot lifts this
tomb from its place. He is unable, however, to open Symeu’s
burning grave (in the cellar of a church). As Symeu’s voice pro-
claims from the grave, only the Grail Winner can do this (175).
Monks bear Galahad’s corpse to Gales (Wales) and the dameel,

having learned Lancelot’s name, returns to her home. — Lance-
lot vanquishes four knights at the “pas de perrons,”’ and helps a
band of the exiles of Gorre to defeat their oppressors. — Gawain

is guided to the “‘pont perdu”’ by the daughter of one of the exiles
(183). On the way thither he is victor in three different common-
place encounters (described at length). He crossea the ‘pont
perdu,” on a submerged plank (193) and vanquishes Sephar,
who opposes him in the crossing. — Lancelot kills a knight, who
has vilified him, because he had ridden in a cart, and wishes to
exact toll of him, repels a treacherous attack of Meleagant’s men
and reaches the chief city of Gorre, where Baudemagus and Guine-
vere witness his arrival from a tower (199). With eyes constantly
fixed on the queen, he crosses the “‘pont d’espee”’ (a sword with
the edge turned upwards), by pulling himself forward astride of
it. An accidental glance at the magic ring which he had received
from the Lady of the Lake drives away the lions which attack him
at the further end of this bridge. The good king, Baudemagus,
and Guinevere suspect Lancelot’s identity and the former tries,
without effect, to dissuade Meleagant from fighting him. Jance-
lot takes off his helmet and shows who he is. In the duel the
sight of Guinevere distracts Lancelot, so that Kay (Kex) upbraids
him for his want of prowess (205). Consequently, Lancelot, asham-
ed of himself, attacks Meleagant with more vigor, but Baude-
magus, seeing that his son is about to be vanquished, gets the
queen to intercede for him, so that Lancelot confines himself to
the defensive. Meleagant at last desists from fighting and sur
renders the queen on condition that he and Lancelot shall fight
for her at Arthur's court. To the surprise of all, Guinevere now
treats Lancelot with disdain. Kay tells Lancelot that only Baude-
magus has kept Meleagant from dishonoring Guinevere. — Lance-

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 341

lot, on his way to join Gawain, is, through a mistake, made captive
by Baudemagus’s subjects. Both Lancelot and the queen are in
despair, owing to false rumors about each other’s death. When
they at last meet, Lancelot learns the cause of her recent anger,
viz. his leaving London without her permission and the affair
of the ring which Morgan sent to court. -- That night Lancelot
removes the bars of a window — wounding his hand, as he did
so, — enters Guinevere’s chamber, and stays with her until tho
approach of day. She tells him that Galehaut is dead. Stains of
blood on the queen’s pillow, caused by Lancelot’s wound, make Mele-
agant believe that she has cohabited with the wounded Kay (210).

Lancelot champions Kay’s innocence in a duel and would
have killed Meleagant, but for the queen’s intercession. — The
exiles of Gorre are now freed and Lancelot again starts to join
Gawain. Nevertheless, Meleagant, by means of a dwarf, lures him
into captivity and later sends to Guinevere a forged letter to the
effect that he is at Camelot. Accompanied by Gawain, she goes
thither, but is disconsolate on finding Lancelot not there. — The
king holds court in mid-August. Here there appears a cart drawn
by a miserable nag and driven by a dwarf. In the cart there was
a knight (Bohort) in bonds and wretchedly clad, who asked to be
delivered (p. 215). His arms were in the cart and his horse at-
tached to it. Hus deliverer would have to take his place. Only
Gawain is willing to eat with the strange knight, for he remembers
that Lancelot rode in a cart. The knight departs, but returns soon
on horseback, upbraids Arthur’s knights for their conduct, chal-
lenges them, and rides forth. Sagremor, etc., follow him and are all
unhorsed. The cart and dwarf reappear, this time with a damsel
(the Lady of the Lake) in the knight’s place. She, too, rebukes
the court and proclaims that the bound knight was Bohort, who
now returns, as the damsel departs. The cart henceforth becomes
a vehicle of honor (218). — Arthur holds a tournament at Pome-
glay (near the boundary of Gorre). Lancelot is let out of prison
temporarily, so that he may attend the affair, incognito, — wins
every joust until the queen bids him do as badly as possible. He
acts thus until she bids him do his best. He now gains the prize

Google

342 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

and returns to prison. Finally, he is released through the efforts
of Meleagant’s half-sister, who hated Meleagant. Meleagant him-
self, having had Lancelot secretly imprisoned, thought now that
Guinevere would be his, since her champion would not be able
to appear. Being free, however, Lancelot goes to court, fights
the duel, and kills Meleagant, whose body is borne away in a
litter (227). — Lancelot is honored at court, hears about Bohort,
and has his own adventures recorded. On his way to Baudemagus’s
capital to answer tho challenge of a knight there, he vanquishes,
in succession, Margondes and Melyadus and despatches them to the
queen (who frees them), takes part with the “‘chastel as dames”’
against the ‘“‘chastel as puceles’’ in a tourney, the latter being
led by Iuionel and Hector disguised (235). Bohort starts for Gorre
to aid Lancelot, succors the two sisters of Hongrefort, one of whom
their uncle, Galinde(s), Lord of the White Castle, desired to marry
to his seneschal. When the vanquished seneschal comes to this
girl she has him and his companion bound and shot from a man-
gonel into the camp of the besiegers. They fall dead before her
uncle’s tent. Bohort, still further, slays Galinde’s nephew, over-
comes twelve of his knights in succession, and finally Galinde(s)
himeelf (251). Saraide, in the fight, tests Bohort’s fidelity to
the Lady of the Lake and afterwards summons him to meet the
latter on the following Sunday. — Galinde’s niece goes to seek
Bohort’s forgiveness for her cruel execution of the seneschal. By
way of penance, she and her company rode horses that were without
manes or tails and they wore their garments turned inside out. —

King Agrippe’s daughter had killed many of King Vadalon’s
men by poisoning a well and he had punished her by fixing two iron
bands about her body. Bohort removes these bands and goes to
revenge her on Vadalon (258). A tournament was to be held at
the Castel de la Marche, in honor of the anniversary of King
Brangoire’s coronation. On his way thither, Bohort overthrows
and wounds a knight (Gawain’s brother, Agravain) who denied
that Lancelot was superior to Gawain. Bohort wins the tourna-
ment for Brangoire’s party and, consequently, has to occupy the
golden chair in a pavilion and be served by the twelve next-best

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 343

knights. According to custom he must now choose a damsel for his
wife — also, one for each of the twelve knights. Having vowed
perpetual chastity, he disappoints Brangoire’s daughter, who loves
him passionately, by making no choice for himself. The knights
now make fantastic vows before the princess as to the ex-
poits which they will accomplish in her honor. That night the
princess’s nurse, by a magic ring, makes Bohort love her mistress
and go to her (the princess’s) chamber. The fruit of their. co-
habitation was Helain le Blanc, Emperor of Constantinople. Bohort
was not conscious of what he had done until, on returning to his
own room, he accidentally rubbed off the magic ring (270). —
Journeying still further, he saves the damsel of Glocedon, whom
four men were about to drown, evades her cousin, the damsel of
Hongrefort, but is followed by the two girls (274). — Lancelot
rescues Meleagant’s sister, who was about to be burned at Florega
by the latter’s people for her part in the latter’s death. On his
way to Florega Lancelot comes upon Galehaut’s tomb (in an abbey),
guarded by five knights. He beats off these knights, opens Gale-
haut’s tomb, has the body taken to Joyous Gard, and gets Saraide
to take Galehaut’s sword to Bohort. He, himself, rides to Bau-
demagus’s court to fight a would-be avenger (Argondras) of Mele-
agant’s death, meets a girl, who, afterwards, dies for love of him,
overthrows certain knights, including one in red armor, and rescues
his host’s brother. He spends a night at Banin’s castle, hears
his praises from the old man, but conceals his identity (289). At
Huidesan he finds Baudemagus, kills Maleagant’s champion in
a duel, and is affectionately treated by Baudemagus, although
he is suspected by the latter of having slain his son (Meleagant).
Lancelot overthrows a knight (Patrides) of Brangoire’s castle, who
was trying to fulfill a vow, made to the princess there, and compels
him to bear to Baudemagus the message that Lancelot had killed
Maleagant and begged pardon for the act. Instructed by an old
woman, he learns at Joyous Gard of a magnificent tomb in the
chapel there and in this he buries Galehaut. Hence he proceeds
to Camelot. — Bohort rescues Lambegue(s) from a vengeful father
and receives from Saraide Galehaut’s sword. Whilst all three are

Google

344 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

being entertained at the castle of a cousin of the damsels of Hongre-
fort and Glocedon, the latter arrive, and the first of the two damsels
‘is pardoned by Bohort for killing the seneschal. Bohort, Lambe-
gue(s), and Saraide reach Joyous Gard after Lancelot’s departure,
and Bohort continues the quest of his cousin alone. — Patride(s)
delivers Lancelot’s message to Baudemagus and the latter learning
from his baron that Meleagant’s body is at the Castle of Four
Stones, goes thither and with great grief had him interred in
a hermitage.

A year later whilst Arthur and his consort are hunting
in the forest of Camelot, Bohort (incognito) carries off the
queen (301) after having unhorsed Kay, Sagremor and Doduinel,
her defenders. On the other hand, Lancelot, though pierced in
the side, wounds and unhorses Bohort. At this point an old damsel
claims the fulfilment of his (Lancelot’s) promise and he has to
quit the place of combat and accompany her. The queen, Dodinel,
and Sagremor take the wounded Bohort to the Fairies’ Foun-
tain and the last two then go to Mathamas’s house in search
of food. On the way, Sagremor beats an insolent dwarf, delivers
Calogrenant, and has a series of fights on behalf of a girl. At
Mathemas’s house he is thrown into prison but is fed by his
captor’s daughter. — Dodinel protects a damsel whom the dwarf
of Malruc the Red had tried to kiss — in doing so overthrows
Malruc and sends him on parole to Guinevere (315) — later, falls
into a stream and is captured (319). — Lancelot, following the
old damsel, has to give up his arms to a knight, as he had previ-
ously promised, and this knight (Griffon des Malx Pas) in Lance-
lot’s armor unhorses Kay and kills Malruc. — On Arthur’s return
from the forest he hears what has happened to Lancelot and is
prostrated with grief. Gawain and nine knights go in quest of
Lancelot. They make their first halt at the Black Cross (321).
(Here follows shortened account of the Black Cross according to the
Estotre, I, 244ff.) In the forest they come upon a knight (Elyzer,
son of Pelles) with two swords. One of them is broken and blood
drops from its point. Gawain and the rest cannot mend the sword.
It was the one with which Joseph of Arimathea was wounded

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 345

(325ff., shortened from Hstoire, I, 252ff.). — Agloval rescues
a knight from Griffon and tells Kay of the quest for Lancelot,
which Kay joine. Gawain frees Sagremor and Hector Dodinel.
Hector, too, joins the quest, but the knights all make search sepa-
rately (334). At the tournament of the Mill Castle Gawain
espouses the cause of Thanaguis’s sweetheart, but is unhorsed by
Hector disguised as a red knight. Both he and Hector fail to
achieve the adventure of the churchyard in which there 1s a burning
tomb, surrounded by twelve tombs (not burning), with a sword
standing upright on each. Only Lancelot can accomplish this. —
Gawain comes to the Grail castle or palace (342) tries vainly to
deliver a girl from a bath of scalding water, is entertained in the
castle by its maimed king, sees a dove flying through the hall,
with a censer in its beak, then a maiden bearing the Grail, which
supplies the most delicious viands and odors conceivable. A dwarf
prevents him from leaving the palace. He lies down armed on the
Adventurous Bed and is wounded there by a flaming lance. He
has an allegorical vision of Arthur’s future wars with Lancelot
and Mordred and sees twelve damsels kneeling, weeping, and pray-
ing before the door where the dove had entered. He fights with
a knight and swoons from exhaustion. A great storm shakes the
palace and Gawain hears angelic voices and sees again the maiden
and the Grail. Darkness envelops the palace and he feels himself
seized, carried out to the courtyard, and bound there to a cart.
The next morning an old woman drives the cart through the town,
whilst the people hoot and cast missiles at him. Having passed
a bridge, she unties him and tells him that the castle is named
Corbenic (347). A hermit later explains to him that this castle
is the Grail Castle and interprets his vision to him. — Hector
slays the cruel Marigart le Rous and delivers from his prison a lady
(cousin of Lancelot) guarded by lions. — Yvain is, likewise, victor
in two minor encounters. — Gawain and his four brothers are
described (858f.) and two adventures of Mordred’s are related,
viz. a fight over a dwarf and his seduction of a girl, who was
the amie of his host.

Google

346 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

When Agravain had left the companions of the quest, he rode
for a week without meeting with any adventure worth mentioning.’9
Then he avenges a girl for her dead lover on Druas, who guarded
a hill and whose father Gawain had slain. Agravain slays Druas,
but the latter’s brother, Sornehan, later unhorses him and im-
prisons him. His life, however, is saved on the intercession of
Sornehan’s niece. Guerrehes makes love to the daughter of an
old knight, whom he had rescued, but she rejects him and expresses
an ardent love for Lancelot (12). He helps his host to repulse a
night attack of twenty men on the castle, rides away, and comes
upon three ladies (sixty, forty, and twenty years old, respectively )
by a fountain. The oldest of the three had been forced to yield her
daughter to a hateful knight. Guerrehes rescues the girl and then
seeks her love. She was in love, however, with another man and
refuses him, adding to her refusal reproaches concerning Guerrehes’s
disloyalty to his own amée (22). The youngest of the three ladies
had incensed her detestable husband by comparing him disadvantage-
ously with Lancelot (16f.), and Guerrehes goes to her castle to
punish this husband. Sagremor, also, arrives there soon after. The
jealous husband, with the aid of his relatives, plots against their
lives, but they are themselves slain (27). Sagremor goes off with
& maiden in search of her brother, Agloval, and Guerrehes comes
at night to four pavilions, goes to bed with a woman (a cousin of
Lancelot’s) who thinks that he is her husband. The husband, believ-
ing that his wife was voluntarily an adulteress, assails Guerrehes
and is killed. Guerrehes carries off the reluctant wife and compels
her to cohabit with him, but she finally gets rid of him by enter-
ing a nunnery (82f.). A week later at Druas’s hill (“‘tertre as
caitis,’ p. 47) he is overthrown by Sornehan and incarcerated

*® Here begins Sommer’s Vol. V, which contains the last division
of the Lancelot, often called (withont manuscript authority) the
Agravain. The opening of this division, as will be observed, pre-
supposes that Agravain was already one of the company who were in
the quest for Lancelot. No mention of him in this connection, how-
ever, had hitherto been made. It seems as if the original text of the
Lancelot must have been altered at this point. See, on the subject,
Bruce, RR, X, 64 ff. (1919).

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 347

along with his brother, Agravain. The victor’s niece, however,
owed a favor to Guerrehes and made them comfortable in prison. —
Gaheriet (Gaheries) undertakes to right the wrongs of a girl, a
vassal of the Lady of Roestoc, in a matter of inheritance against
her brother-in-law, Guidan — on the way thither, vanquishes
Guinae, who was eager to measure his strength with Gawain, and
frees Brandelis, who had got into trouble with a jealous knight
(41) — also, compels a knight to apologize to a dwarf, and arrives
at Roestoc — is victorious over Guidan, who drowns himeelf in
despair (46). He learns of the captivity of Agravain and Guerrehes
from a girl, vanquishes Sornehan at the hill (henceforth called
Agravain’s Hill) and liberates them. — The three brothers assist
-Duke Calles and his nephews against his six sons, who, in a quarrel
over a question of inheritance had killed their brother-in-law and
were besieging their father (53). Agravain nearly ruins the duke’s
cause by his rashness — is captured but afterwards exchanged.
His brothers and the duke, however, win the battle, in which
one of Calles’s sons is slain by Gaheriet. — Arthur and Guinevere
believe that Lancelot is dead and express this belief to Lionel,
when he returns to court. In lieu of Lancelot and Gawain, Bohort
goes as champion of the Lady of Galvoie and begins, at the same
time, with Lionel the quest for Lancelot. They were confidants
of the queen and she regrets their departure. — Confined to her
bed from grief over Lancelot, the queen has a dream of Lancelot
in bed with a beautiful maiden and later she tries to embrace
the dream-figure of Lancelot. She sends a girl-messenger to the
Lady of the Lake, praying her to come to her for Lancelot’s sake
(65). — Lancelot, now well again, rescues a girl from her ravisher
and sends her grateful sister to court to announce that he is alive.
On receiving this news, Guinevere rapidly recovers. — Lancelot and
the old damsel come upon a knight and two girls — one of them,
the knight’s sister — by a spring, which is full of venom, because
of two serpents that live in it. Lancelot is poisoned by the water
and his body swells up. The knight’s sister, who had fallen deeply
in love with our hero, saves his life by her skill, but he loses
his hair and his nails (73). Bohort and Lionel discover their

Google

348 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

cousin in this condition and the former proceeds on his errand to
the Lady of Galvoie. Lionel, on the other hand, gives Lancelot
the ring which Guinevere had sent the latter and takes back to
her some of his hair and news of his illness. — In order to see her
lover, the queen, on Lionel’s advice, has a tournament proclaimed
for the octaves of St. Magdalene’s Day, in the expectation that
he will attend it. Lionel carries back Guinevere’s greetings to
Lancelot and hears from the knight's sister a confession of her
love for her patient. The girl, herself, is now ill for this reason
and cannot continue her ministrations to Lancelot— consequently,
he, too, is growing worse. Lionel remonsirates with the sick man
for not saving his own life and the girl’s by promising her his
love (79), but he will not do so without Guinevere’s leave. Lionel
comforte the girl by declaring that Lancelot will be her kmight,
should she heal him, and goes back to Camelot. The queen sends
a message by him to Lancelot, bidding her lover act in such a
manner, as to save both his life and the girl’s. In the end, his
benefactress, whose passion is not of a carnal nature, is contented,
when Lancelot merely promises to be her knight, without detri-
ment to Guinevere’s claims, and exchanges tokens with her (84). —
Lionel and Lancelot assist Calles’s sons to defeat their father. The
latter kills Calles and overthrows Gaheriet, not knowing who he
is. He has the three brothers (all prisoners) released. He has
now satisfied the claims of the old damscl and goes on with Lionel.

Whilst Lancelot is asleep under an apple-tree, a big knight,
Terican, unhorses Lionel and bears him away, as he has already done
many other Arthurian knights, Agloval, Sagremor, Kay, and others,
hanging up their shields, etc., on pine trees near a spring. Shortly
after Lionel, Hector suffers the same fate (91). — The Queen of
Sorestan, Morgan le Fay (who did not recognize Lancelot on
account of his short hair), and Sebile seize the sleeping Lancelot
and imprison him in the “Chastel de la Charete.”” He angers them
by speaking contemptously of their love. The daughter of the Duke
of Rochedon, who is in charge of the captive, is about to be forced
into a hateful marriage with the brother of her hereditary enemy,
the Queen of Sorestan. She releases Lancelot, on condition that

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 349

he shall frustrate this marriage. He goes to a tournament between
Baudemagus and the King of Norgales and, on his journey thither,
he comes upon Meleagant’s sister in a convent. She summons her
father and in the joyful meeting between the two, Lancelot prom-
ises Baudemagus to fight. (incognito) on the latter’s side. He
redeems his promise, overthrows Mordred, Mador de la Porte, and
Galehodin, who had won the previous tourney, and drives the men
of Norgales before him. He avoids recognition and rides away
into the forest (102). A lady, whose husband had fought against
Lancelot in the tournament, invites him to her castle, saying that
the next day she would show him the most beautiful thing (Pelles’s
daughter) that he had ever seen. Lancelot accepts and on the
morrow is taken to Corbenic. He delivers the girl from the
tub of scalding water (cp. Gawain’s failure, above), slays a
fire-spitting serpent and is welcomed at the Grail castle by Pelles.
Like Gawain, he sees the dove, and the damsel who carries the
Grail (108). With Pelles’s consent, Brisane, nurse of Pelles’s
daughter, manages to bring about the cohabitation of Lancelot and
her charge at a neighboring castie (Castel de la Casse). By means
of a magie potion, she deludes him into the idea that he was in
bed with Guinevere. Thus Galahad is engendered.*° .

The purpose of the plot was that a hero might be begotten to
deliver the Terre Foraine from the evils which had come upon it
from the Dolorous Stroke (110). The next morning Lancelot
wishes to kill Pelles’s daughter on account of the deception, but,
touched by her beauty and by her pleas for compassion, foregoes
his wrath. Whilst in search of Lionel, he saves from rape the
girl that had healed him, learns that Hector is his bastard half-
brother, having been begotten by Ban upon the daughter of the
“Sires des Mares.’’ He unhorses Hector’s uncle, meets Hector’s
mother, and, despite warnings of its dangers, enters the ‘‘ Forest
Perdue,” from which no one had ever returned. In this forest
he succumbs to the spell of the enchanted carols (123). — Not

°° For discussion of this cardinal episode of the Grail romances
cp. F. Lot, Etude sur le Lancelot en prose, p. 217 (Paris, mt)
and Bruce, RR, IX, 364ff. (1918).

Google

350 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

knowing each other, Bohort and Yvain fight over a dog which
Yvain’s damsel has taken from a dwarf. They stop on learning
each other’s identity. Bohort, hearing from the dwarf about Lance-
lot’s participation in Baudemagus’s recent tournament and, also,
of the impending tournament at Camelot, decides to go thither. —
In order to free a dwarf, Yvain binds himself to kiss an old woman,
but, to get out of this predicament, beats down a shield — of the
giant, Mauduit, as it turns out — ina pavilion. Mauduit, enraged,
slays many people in his quest of Ivain. Ivain, in turn, seeks for
the giant, but is captured by five knights and imprisoned in a
castle, the lady of which befriends him, because his father had
once done hers a favor (138). — In a duel with Mariales Bohort
champions the Lady of Galvoie in a matter of inheritance, at
Corbenic, before Pellese. He vanquishes his foe, and on Lancelot’s
account, is hospitably entertained at the Grail castle. There he
beholds the Grail, cared for by a niece of Pelles, since his daughter
was disqualified now for the office by her loss of virginity (141f.).

Bohort next comes to a small church, kept by a hermit. This
hermit, who in his early life had been one of the elder Bohort’s
knights, tells him of the prediction, made by another hermit at
Lancelot’s baptism, in regard to Lancelot’s future greatness —
also, how the elder Bohort had built this church in commemoration
of his escape from destruction at the hands of King Cerses. Later
Bohort is reproached by one girl for not having faced the dangers
of the Adventurous Palace at Corbenic and rescues from two knights
another girl’s brother and hawk (147). — The girl who had healed
Lancelot tells Gawain that she had recently seen him (Lancelot).
In the meanwhile Lancelot, as the best and handsomest of knights,
had undone the spell of the knights and ladies who danced and
carolled incessantly in the Forest Perdue, and of the invincible
automatic chessmen. This chessboard he sends to Guinevere. The
above-mentioned enchantments had been established by a brother
(Guinebaut ) — now dead — of Lancelot’s father. — Thirty knights
attack Lancclot, beat him and throw him into a well, full of
snakes and vermin (155). The daughter of the lord of the castle
rescues him, but she and Lancclot aro afterwards beaten unmerci-

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 351

fully by her father and his men. In the fight Lancelot -kills
many of these men and the father breaks his neck. The daughter,
unaware of her father’s death, flies with Lancelot, carrying off
much treasure with her. On the way, Lancelot avenges the death
of a maiden on her slayer (a knight), by compelling him to bear
her corpse to Camelot, and submit to execution there, if the queen
and the ladies consider this desirable. In case they pardon him,
he is to repeat the same performance at the courts of Baudemagus
and Norgales. — Lancelot had lost sight of the girl with the
treasure, but later rescues her from her brother and three knights,
who had pursued her and were about to burn her. Accompanied
by this girl, Lancelot arrives at the Chastel de la Charrete on the
day when the daughter of the Duke of Rochedon was to be forced
to wed the brother of the Queen of Sorestan. Lancelot frustrates
the marriage and the cowardly (intended) bridegroom slinks away
(166). — The damsel who was accompanying Lancelot brings
letters from him to Guinevere, and later messages back and forth
between the two, whereby the queen learns her lover’s purpose of
appearing, trcognito, in red armor at the tournament. Certain
envious knights of the Round Table resolve to fight against which-
ever side Lancelot should espouse. Lancelot fights on the same
side as Baudemagus and against Gawain and Bohort, who, like
Arthur, do not recognize him. He performs marvels of prowess
and the king expresses bitter regret that Lancelot is not there to
oppose the wonderful new knight (175f.). When Lancelot, how-
ever, finds himself facing the queen, he is so stricken by her beauty
that he has to be taken off the field — hence Arthur’s men again
‘get the upper hand. The queen, alarmed, despatches Bohort to
Lancelot with the command that the latter, if not wounded, should
come to her that night. In the interim, she attacks the damsel who
cured Lancelot of the poisoned water, but her jealousy is allayed,
when she learns of the true relations of this girl to Lancelot.
Gawain and others agree that the red knight (really Lancelot) is
superior to Lancelot. Guinevere resents Ydier’s criticism of her
lover and, consequently, through Bohort, induces Baudemagus to
challenge Arthur to another assembly. — Lancelot spends two

Google

352 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

nights with the queen and on the second visit she equips him with
white armor and Bohort with red for the coming tournament (185).
Some four thousand knights, including the Emperor of Germany
and King of Norgales, take part in the assembly. Lancelot un-
horses Gawain and Gaheriet and chases the other knights of the
Round Table from the field. Having revealed his identity, at the
king’s request, he is cordially welcomed at court. Baudemagus
and other high personages are beaten at chess by the automatic
chessmen — only Lancelot wins against them. — Clerks now record
Lancelot’s adventures in a separate book (found at Salisbury after
Arthur’s death) — likewise, Gawain’s (191f.). — Lancelot, Bohort,
Baudemagus (now made a knight of the Round Table), etc. begin
a quest for the knights who had not returned from the search for
Lancelot. Before Lancelot’s departure, however, he has an inter-
view with the queen in which she laments that his sin with her
would keep him from achieving the Grail quest and gives him
a ring presented to her by the Lady of the Lake, which had the
power of dispelling enchantments. The first exploit of the questers
is. to rescue Mordred from Maten and his band of ruffians at the
Tour de la Blanche Espine, burning at the same time both tower
and town; the next was to liberate Yvain from the dungeon of the
Castel del Trespas. He had been shut up there, because he had
aroused the anger of the giant, Mauduit, and thus brought many
ills on the country. The next day Bohort slays Mauduit (203). —

The companions now separate, but agree to reassemble on All
Saints’ Day at the Castel del Trespas. — Lancelot is seeking for
Lionel. A damsel takes him to the castle of Terrican (Carados’s
brother), where the latter is in prison — along with Agloval,
Sagremor, and others — but exacts from him the promise that
he will follow her, whenever she summons him. After a long
combat Lancelot kills Terrican, who was bringing in a new cap-
tive —- the wounded Gaheriet. Summoned by the damsel, he has
to leave the liberation of the prisoners to Gaheriet. After these
have been set free, Gaheriet, Agloval, ctc., go ti.eir several ways,
in quest of Lancelot (210). — Lancelot kills a robber-knight who
had appropriated the damsel’s palfrey, and getting on the trail of

Go ogle

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 353

Hector, kills, furthermore, a peasant robber, and two giants so
strong that they disdained the use of weapons. One of Morgan’s
emissaries (a girl), however, now entices him into a house in the
Forest Desvoiable, and there he is imprisoned. Whilst he is under
the influence of a narcotic, Morgan blows a powder into his nose,
which deprives him of his senses (216). Thus he had been in
prison for a month before he knew it. One day he sees through
the window a man painting the history of Aeneas’s flight from
Troy. Lancelot borrows some of his colors and paints on the wall
of his room the main events in his affair with Guinevere. Morgan
(herself, in love with Lancelot) is glad that he is betraying him-
self in this manner. — Gawain renews the quest for Lancelot,
learns from the Queens del Parc (whose brother had been one
of Terrican’s captives) about Lancelot’s exploits and from Baude-
magus of the rendezvous on All Saints’ Day at the Castel del
Trepas, goes there, but Lancelot (being in prison) does not turn up.
They agree to meet at the same place on Magdalen’s Day, but on
that day there is still no news of Lancelot. After two winters
and one summer of captivity, Lancelot breaks the bars out of his
window, to gather a rose, which reminded him of the queen. Being
once out, he procures armor and rides away (223). — Lionel was
& prisoner in the Castel d’Estrangot, where Vagor held him on
a charge of treason. Lancelot goes thither to deliver him. On
the way, a knight, wounded with an arrow, which no one but
the best knight in the world can draw out of him, not knowing who
Lancelot is, refuses to let him remove it. Lancelot gets the news
about Agloval etc. from the wounded Baudemagus at this knight's
house and rides to L’Ille Estrange (variant, Estrangot), where
Lionel is in prison. The King (Vagor) allows him to see Lionel,
who is still disabled by his wound, so that he cannot fight with
Marabron (Vagor’s son) the next day. (As the result of a Poti-
phar’s wife incident, Lionel had killed Marabron’s brother and
now had to defend his innocence against Marabron). Lancelot takes
Lionel’s place in the duel, vanquishes his opponent, and compels
him to retract the slander about Lionel (231). — Lancelot next
comes to the abbey of La Petite Aumosne — so named, because
Kefperia, Ergdngungsreihe: 9. 23

Google

354 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

of the small dole which a Scotch king, Heliser (one of Joseph of
Arimathea’s converts), who had voluntarily embraced a beggar’s
life, had received there. Lancelot leaves the wounded Lionel in
this abbey and proceeds to the castle of the Tertre Deuce, founded
by Clochide(s), who, for the protection of his wife, would permit
nobody to approach it. Bohort, however, had overthrown Clo-
chide(s) and was defending the hill in his stead. He had already
vanquished and imprisoned, among others,-Gawain, Yvain, Hec-
tor — all smcognito. Lancelot is getting the best of Bohort, when
he recognizes by a sword of Galehot’s the identity of his ad-
versary. Bohort now sets his prisoners free (242).

Obeying a vision, Lancelot slips away to achieve the adventure
of his (paternal) grandfather’s tomb in the Perilous Forest. This
grandfather (the elder Galahad) had been treacherously beheaded at
a boiling spring by a (wrongly) jealous cousin. His bleeding tomb
was watched over by two lions. Lancelot kills the lions and lifts
the head from the boiling spring, but, as he learns from a hermit,
his sins disable him from attempting the other adventures (248). —
Later he and a squire see in the Perilous Forest a white stag
conducted by four lions. Here, too, a knight, Sarras of Logres,
tells Lancelot (whom he does not know) of Galahad’s birth (251).
After avenging Sarras on Belias, he dispatches the former
to the court with a message that he will be at Camelot on
Whitsunday. — The damsel whom the queen had sent to the
Lady of the Lake was delayed, en route, at a convent by illness.
Whilst passing through Gannes, Claudas detains her and is pro-
voked by her answers to his inquiries with regard to Lancelot,
Lionel, and Bohort. To prevent Claudas from seeing the letter
she is carrying, the girl gives it to a dwarf, who throws it into
the river. The seneschal, however, observes him, as he does so,
and the messenger and her attendants are, therefore, committed
to prison. Claudas now sends two squires to Great Britain as spies.
One of them is so impressed by the splendor of Arthur's court
that he docs not return to Claudas, and a year later tells the queen
of her messenger’s misfortune. He bears then a letter from Guine-
vero to Claudas, demanding the girl’s release and threatening venge-

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 355

ance in case of non-compliance. Expressing contempt both for her
and for her “‘lecher’’ (Lancelot), Claudas returns defiance to the
queen (263). — Lancelot is attacked by a black knight (Belias’s
brother), pursues him into a castle, kills him, his father, and
others and liberates, also, Mordred, who was imprisoned there. —
In response to a message from Lancelot, Gawain and his companions
at the Terire Deuce set out to Camelot, in order that they may
be present there on Whitsunday. On their way, they come to
Peningue (a castle of Galehodin’s), where a tournament is in pre-
paration. Calling themselves poor knights of Norgales, they deter-
mine to take part in the affair. Before the assembly, however,
they save Agloval from knights who were trying to revenge the
death of one of Galehodin’s relatives and kill several of his pur-
suers. Galehodin is at first angry over the slaughter of these
men, but accepts Gawain’s explanation and rejoices to meet him
(276). — Lancelot and Mordred eee in the Perilous Forest, by
moonlight, the stag and four lions pass before them. In riding
after the animals they are suddenly attacked by two knights and
their horses taken from them; they recover them, however, later.
A hermit tells them that only the Grail Winner will be able to
understand the vision of the stag and lions. Mordred unhorses
two knights. He and Lancelot hear at a vavasor’s about the tourna-
ment of Peningue and determine to go there. In the forest nearby
they come upon a rich tomb and a priest kneeling before it.
The priest angers Mordred by telling him of his incestuous birth
and of his future wickedness and evil end and is killed by him
(284 f.). Lancelot and Mordred, in the tournament, fight against
Galehodin’s party, which includes Gawain, Lionel, Bohort, and
Hector, and Lancelot performs wonderful feats of arms. Only at
the end, however, are Bohort and Hector convinced of his true iden-
tity. Bohort follows him from the field and the two have a joyful
meeting. When the others hear later who he is, they are dis-
appointed that they did not recognize him. They now start for
Camelot, bearing Mordred, who had been wounded by his own
brothers (291). After rescuing from robbers the son and daughter

** On this episode cp. Bruce, RR., IX, 382ff. (1918).
yd

Google

356 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

of the King of a Hundred Knights, Bohort gets separated from
Lancelot and, in his wandering, comes again to Corbenic (296).
He overthrows Brunout who loved Pelles’s daughter and was wait-
ipg there for a chance to attack Lancelot. He, also, sees Galahad
(now two years old) and learns that the child is Lancelot’s. He
again beholds the Grail and its wonders and he spends two nights
in the Adventurous Palace, where he has all sorts of fantastic
experiences, comprising an allegorical vision of the wars that
brought about the destruction of the Round Table.*? — After two
insignificant adventures, Lancelot, now in search of Bohort, saves
Kay (Kex) one night from pursuing knights, and the next mor-
ning by mistake puts on Kay’s armor. He is, accordingly, mis-
taken for Kay and assailed by various knights, including Sagre-
mor, Hector, Yvain and Gawain, all of whom he unhorses. —
He comes upon the damsel who had healed him and in the same
place meets Brangoire’s daughter and her little son, whose father
was Bohort (311). Lancelot apologizes for Bohort’s not visit-
ing her and offers himself as her knight. — Gawain, Bohort and
the rest return to Camelot in time for the Whitsunday (435, A.D.)
service there in St. Stephen’s cathedral. In the distribution of
gifts, according to individual merit, Bohort is the most favored
knight. Kay, arriving in red armor, is at first mistaken for Lance-
lot. He tells, however, the incident of Lancelot’s unintentional ex-
chango of arms, and Gawain and his companions now know who
really struck them down in the armor of the supposed Kay. Lance-
lot arrives and in the joust that follows, through an inadvertence,
is unhorsed by Gawain (318). He is treated with honor by Arthur.

Arthur, crowned, goes with the queen and his nobles to
St. Stephen’s church. A picture on the wall there of a serpent
reminds Lancelot of the slain priest’s interpretation of Arthur’s
allegorical prophetic dream (Sommer, V, 284) about his death by

** On this second visit of Bohort’s to the Grail castle cp. Bruce,
RR, IX, 385 ff. (1918). The description is more complicated here than
ig the case with any of the other descriptions of visits to the same
castle in the Lancelot. Note, too, that in this passage Pelles's father,
and not Pelles, is the Fisher King, as well as the Maimed King.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 357

the serpent (Mordred). Not one of the 150 knights of the Round
Table is absent. At this juncture, Brumant, Claudas’s nephew,
in fulfilment of a foolish vow, tries to occupy the vacant seat (the
Perilous Seat) at the Round Table, reserved for Galahad, and is
consumed in doing so (820f.). — Guinevere learns from Lance-
lot about his imprisonment at Morgan’s hands and tells him of
Claudas’s insulting message. He resolves to avenge her and, at
the same time, recover his patrimony. Baudemagus and Arthur
promise to aid him with all their power. Two spies bring news
of all this to Claudas, who gets ready for war, although the ma-
jority of the knights, subject to him, leave him for Great Britain
(830f.). Through liberality, however, he attracts to himself a
large number of knights and, besides, he gains the Romans as
allies. His step-son, Claudin, commands his army. Arthur has
the adventures of Lancelot, Bohort and the rest recorded (Lance-
lot’s in a separate volume). Guinevere learns from Lancelot
about Mordred’s slaying the priest and about the latter’s pro-
phecy — only Lancelot suppressed the fact that Mordred was
Arthur’s son. — Arthur, whose host had been now strengthened
by the forces of Brangoire, Carados and others, first subdues Flan-
ders and then invades Gaul. They capture Pinegon, but Serses,
who was in command there escanes and tells of the castle's fall.
Claudas’s seneschal advises a surprise raid upon the enemy.
Claudin leads the attack successfully, and he returns with many
captives to Claudas’s base, the Chastel del Cor (p. 342). — In the
great battle before this castle that now ensues, Claudas’s army
is beaten. Claudas, himself, brings reinforcements from Gannes
which enable it to rally, but they are afterwards pushed back to
Gannes by Bohort’s division. At this point Claudas exchanges
Lionel, whom he had captured, for his nephew, Chanart (355).
Lancelot’s mother and the Lady of the Lake (now married to
a knight) come to the camp in search of Lancelot. The latter
observes the Roman host in hiding and informs Bohort.
Consequently, when the Romans delivered what they im-
agined would be a surprise attack, Arthur's men were ready for
them. The battle lasted a week (361) — then a truce was de-

Google

358 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

olared, in order that the combatants might bury their dead. On
the expiration of the truce, the battle before Gannes is renewed,
and Gawain, Bohort, and Hector make Claudin and Chanart pri-
soners. A truce is again proclaimed and Baudemagus (captured by
the Romans before the first truce) is exchanged for Claudin and
Chanart (369). — In response to a message from Yvain, Lancelot,
with Arthur and a new host, goes to Gaul, the crown to which is
now claimed by Frolle d’Alemaigne. Arthur asserts that his claim
is superior and invests Lancelot with the kingdom and summons
its barons to do him (Lancelot) homage. Being worsted in battle,
Frolle challenges Arthur to a duel. He (Frolle) is killed in this
affair, and when Claudas hears of his ally’s death, he abandons
hope and takes flight by night (875). When Arthur and Lancelot
arrive, Claudin surrenders Gannes to them. Here Lancelot’s mother
welcomes her son, but dies a week later at her abbey. — Heotor
becomes king of Benoic and Lionel of Gaul, but Lancelot and
Bohort refuse crowns, and return to Camelot with Arthur before
Whitsuntide, at which time Arthur holds a great court. Pellee’s
daughter, with Brisane and young Galahad, attends it somewhat
to Lancelot’s dismay (378) and is made muoh of there. Brisane
again brings about a cohabitation of Lancelot with Pelles’s
daughter. Guinevere detects him in the act and drives him away
from Camelot. He bids the city farewell in a touching apostrophe
and soon becomes demented from grief (381). Indignant at the
queen’s conduct, Bohort reproaches her and quits Camelot, taking
Hector and Lionel with him, to go in quest of his cousin. Gawain,
Yvain and many others soon join, also, in this quest, which lasted
two years. Perceval (now fifteen years old) accompanies his
brother, Agloval, to court, with the purpose of getting knighted
383ff.). He does not let his mother know of his intention until
he is already on the way. She dies when she hears of it, and the
squire, who brought the message, is killed by an enemy of Aglo-
val’s, before he can overtake the brothers on his return journey.
Perceval is dubbed knight by Arthur at Carduel and a damsel,
hitherto mute, assigns him to the seat on the left of the Perilous
Seat (reserved for Galahad at the Round Table);. Bohort is to

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 359

occupy the one on the right. She did not speak again, until she
received the corpus domms four days later on her death-bed. Stung
by remarks of Kay’s and Mordred’s, Perceval sets forth on adven-
tures (in quest of Lancelot).. By one stroke of the sword, he severs
the chain with which a jealous husband had bound Patrides (Baude-
magus’s son). Next he fights Hector. Neither knows the other,
until they both have been desperately wounded. As they were
lying near each other, in agony, a vision of the Grail heals
them both (p. 392). Hector explains to his companion what the
Grail is and Perceval vows to dedicate himself to the quest of it.

Bliant takes the mad Lancelot, chained to his bed, to his
(Bliant’s) castle and cures his physical ills. Lancelot, in turn,
saves Bliant’s life, when the latter is pursued by two knights into
Lancelot’s room in the castle (397). Lancelot, still insane, is
wounded by a boar, is cared for by a hermit, and finally wanders
to Corbenic. There he seeks shelter in a stable and amuses the
people by his gambols. A cousin of Pelles dresses the madman
in @ equire’s garments, but even then Pelles does not know him.
On finding him asleep in a garden, however, Pelles’s daughter
did recognize him. Pelles has him bound and carried into the
Adventurous Palace, and during the night he is healed by the
Holy Grail (400). At his own request, he is now taken to a castle
on an island in the sea, where Pelles’s daughter and her maidens
keep him company. Here he gives himself up to grief every day
when he looks towards Logres. Under the title of “Li Cheualiers
Mesfais,” he proclaims through a dwarf that he will joust against
all comers. He is victor in many encounters and acquires the repu-
tation of being the best knight in the world. Pelles’s daughter
and her attendants led such a merry life there that the island
became known as the “Isle of Joy.’’ Perceval and Hector hear
about the wonderful knight and determine to try their luck with
him in jousting. It is a drawn contest between Lancelot and Perce-
val. Learning at last who Perceval is, Lancelot discloses his own
identity. Pelles’s daughter now entertains the two stranger knights
and Hector tells Lancelot of Guinevere’s desire that her lover should
return to court. Thus, after a sojourn of four years on the island,

Go ogle

360 Evolution of Arthurstan Romance

Lancelot rejoins Arthur and the rest at Caerleon, stopping at Cor-
benic en route. The child Galahad is put in a convent not far
from Camelot, the abbess of which was Pelles’s sister. When the
boy was eighteen years old, a neighboring hermit, one day, after
Kaster, announced to Arthur that at Whitsuntide the young knight
who was to achieve the Grail adventures would come to court
and occupy the Perilous Seat (409).

4. La Queste del Saint Graal**.

On Whitsunday Eve a damsel comes to Camelot and, in the
name of Pelles, summons Lancelot to follow her. She takes him
to a convent in the woods where Galahad had been brought up.
He finds Bohort and Lionel there, dubs Galahad (whose identity
is unknown to him, but is suspected by Bohort and Lionel) and
returns the next day with his cousins of court.** They observe there
from an inscription on the Perilous Seat that it is to be occupied
that day (Whitsunday, 454, A.D.) by its master. — Arthur is
about to sit down to dinner, when he is reminded by Kay that
custom forbids his doing so until some adventure had happened.
The adventure, however, is not long delayed. A stone with a
sword fastened in it is reported to be floating on the river. On the
handle of the weapon there is a declaration that only the best
knight in the world can wield it. Gawain and Perceval fail in the
trial and Lancelot holds back (p. 7). Suddenly the doors and
windows of the hall shut of themselves, but it remains light inside.
Then, an old man, clad in white, leads in a knight in red armor
without shield or sword, and introduces him as a descendant of
David and of Joseph of Arimathea. The knight (Galahad) occu-
pies the Perilous Seat and his name at once appears on it.
Guinevere, when she hears of the young stranger, guesses that
this is the son of- Lancelot and Pelles’s daughter. Galahad now
draws the above-mentioned sword from the stone. — In honor of

** This is printed in Sommer, VI, 3—199.

** On discrepancies between the end of the Lancelot and the
commencement of the Queste, cp. Bruce, RR, X, 114 ff. (1919).

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 361

the queet for the Holy Grail which is about to commence Arthur
holds a great tournament. In this affair Galahad, though shield-
less, unhorses all the other participants, save Lancelot and Perce-
val. That evening, as the knights of the Round Table were sitting
at table together, there was a clap of thunder, and an intense
light in the hall — then the Holy Grail, covered with white samite,
was borne in by invisible hands. It filled the palace with delicious.
odors and satisfied each knight with the kind of food he most
desired (13). After that it vanished. The sacred vessel, how-
ever, had not fully revealed itself to the companions: Gawain,
therefore vows that he will go in quest of it, and the others offer
a similar vow — much to Arthur’s consternation, who fears now
that he is about to lose a large number of his knights. Many
of the ladies intended to accompany the knights, but the hermit,.
Nasocien, warns the latter that this would be a sin and admonishes
them, moreover, to confess their sins before they start on the
quest: — Arthur wishes to prevent the quest, but this provea
impossible. Beginning with Galahad, the (150) knights all swear
not to return to court until they have learned the truth about
the Grail. As Lancelot parts with the queen, she upbraids him
for leaving her. The knights begin the quest together and are
all entertained at Vagan’s castle together, but after that they sepa-
rate (20). On the fifth day Galahad comes to a white (Cistercian)
abbey (where, as it was told in the Hstoire del Saint Graal, Nascien
was buried) and meets there Baudemagus and Yvain the Bastard.
At this abbey a marvellous white shield with a red cross on it.
is kept — the shield by virtue of which Mordrain overcame the pagan
Tholomer. Baudemagus tries to carry it off, but a white knight
(Christ) unhorses and wounds him and sends the shield to Galahad
by a squire. Galahad now achieves the adventure of removing the
armed corpse of a knight from a devil-haunted tomb. The whole
adventure has a symbolical significance, which is expounded to
Galahad by a monk (28ff.). Galahad, accompanied by Melian
(son of the king of Denmark), leaves the abbey. Méelian, how-
ever, parts with Galahad, picks up a gold crown, which he found
on a chair in the forest, and is severely wounded for this by a

Google

362 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

knight, who, later, is, himself, wounded and put to flight by
Galahad. The symbolical significance of this adventure, too, is
explained by a monk (32ff.). Galahad leaves the disabled Melian
at the abbey and next conquers, against great odds, the Castle
of Maidens, delivering the captive girls there (37). — First, Ga-
wain, and, then, Gaheriet come to the castle where Melian lay
wounded. The two are joined further on by Yvain and all three
together elay the seven wicked brothers who had fled from the
Castle of Maidens (38). A hermit chides Gawain for his sin-
fulness — particularly for his neglect of the confessional — but
recognizes that these admonitions, in the case of such a hardened
sinner, are lost labor. — Lancelot and Perceval are unhorsed by
Galahad (neither side knowing the other). They separate, and
Lancelot comes to a dilapidated chapel, but furnished with a rich
altar and a silver chandelier inside. He falls asleep by a cross,
not far from the chapel, and has a vision of a knight in a litter.
In answer to the knight’s prayers, God sends the Holy Grail, which
heals him. The sacred vessel and the chandelier, which had ac-
companied it, now return to the chapel, and the knight, wonder-
ing that Lancelot had slept through all these marvels, takes the
latter’s equipment and joins in the Grail quest. When Lancelot
awakes, he discovers that the things seen in his vision had actu-
ally happened. Moreover, a stern voice from the chapel rebukes
him for his sins and bids him begone. In a spirit of profound
despondency and self-reproach, he comes to a hermit’s chapel in
the woods. In response to the hermit’s exhortations, Lancelot con-
fesses all his sins, including even his adulterous relations with
Guinevere. — Perceval’s aunt, once the queen of the Terre Gastee,
lived as a religious recluse in the forest near the spot where he
and Lancelot parted company. From her he learns that the knight
who had unhorsed him was Galahad — also, that his mother is dead.

She describes to him (54ff.) too, the origin of the Grail table
and the Round Table which were both similar to the table of

** This account differs in some important details from the account
of the same matter, given in the Estoire del Saint Graal, Sommer,
I, 216.

Google

~ Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 363

the Last Supper. Merlin, she says, reserved the Perilous Seat
at the Round Table for the future master of that table (Galahad).
She compares Galahad to Christ and expounds the allegorical sig-
nificance of each detail that marked his first appearance at Arthur's
court. She, also, cautions Perceval that he must keep chaste, if
he is to achieve the Grail quest. — At the service in a monastery
Perceval sees an old lamed king (Mordrain) on a couch receive
the sacrament. The priest tells Perceval of how Mordrain (now
four hundred years old) was wounded and how, receiving no sus-
tenance, except from the holy wafer, he was waiting to be healed
by the Grail Winner that was to be (62). After Perceval left the
priest, he is assailed by twenty armed men and rescued by Galahad
(incognito). His steed having been killed, he tries in vain to get
another. — A seeming woman, really a devil, supplies him with a
black charger, which carries him off with miraculous speed —
finally plunging into a body of water. Here Perceval involuntarily
makes the sign of the cross and the animal vanishes. In the
morning he perceives that he is on a mountain surrounded by the
sea. Observing a fight between a lion and a serpent over the
former's cub, he wins the lion’s gratitude by killing the serpent,
and the grateful beast spends the night by his side, but in the
morning is gone. During the night two women come to him in
a vision. The younger woman, mounted on a lion, warns him that
on the morrow he is to have an encounter with the most redoubt-
able champion in the world; the older reproaches him for killing
the serpent. — A man, in the garb of a priest, visits Perceval’s
isle next day and interprets to him the allegorical import of his
dream (738f.). After this good man (Christ) had sailed away
in his ship, a fallen angel, in the form of a woman, tempts Perceval
to carnal sin. Only his making accidentally the sign of the cross
again saves him and drives away the demon. Perceval, contrite,
stabs himeelf in ‘the thigh as a castigation for his sin. The good
man returns now and explains to Perceval the true meaning of the
history of herself which this demon had given him. The visitor
then vanishes and a voice bids Perceval enter the ship, which
will take him to Galahad and Bohort (82). — Lancelot receives

Google

364 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

admonitions from the bermit, especially on the subject of the neces-
sity of chastity and of confessing one’s sins, and goes on his
journey. After being upbraided by a squire in the forest for his
adultery he comes upon another hermit, just as he is exorcising
a devil from the corpse of an old man that is lying before his
dwelling. The hermit relates to Lancelot the marvellous circum-
stances of the hermit-knight’s death (he had been killed by venge-
ful knights) and they are to bury him the next day. In the mean-
while, he (the hermit) enumerates Lancelot’s virtues before he
sinned with Guinevere and how the devil now had got him into
his power — compares, also, the Grail quest to the wedding feast
in the Gospel (St. Matthew, XXII, 1ff.): “For many are called,
but few are chosen” (91). At this point Lancelot declares him-
self repentant and happier from his repentance. He puts on hair-
cloth, promises the hermit that he will confess his sins every week,
and departs. A damsel on a white palfrey exhorts him to per-
severe in repentance. That night he has a strange vision (relating
really to his ancestors and to his son, Galahad). The following
day he comes to a third hermit and confesses his sins to this
holy man, who expounds to him his latest dream. He proceeds
on his journey, and takes the part of the black knights in a tourna-
ment against their opponents, the white knights, because the former
seems the weaker side. He proves himself the most skillful of all
the combatants, but his side loses and he is led away into the forest
in a state of the deepest dejection (p. 101). A female recluse here
interprets to him the allegorical meaning of the tournament and
his defeat. He next arrives at the Lake Marchoise, where a black
knight, rising out of the water, kills his horse.. Thus Lancelot
is cut off without food in a trackless forest. — After fruitless
wanderings, Gawain and Hector come to a ruined chapel in the
woods, and are visited there by dreams that symbolize the vain
efforts of themselves and their associates to attain the Grail. On
their way to the hermitage of Nascien, who interprets these dreams
to them (111ff.), Gawain kills Yvain (Ywain), the Bastard, not
knowing who he is. — An old man of religion impresses upon
Bohort the necessity of confession and repentance, gives him a

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 365

white garment to put on under his scarlet one, hears the penitent’s
confession and absolves him (120). Henceforth he adopts ascetic
practices in regard to food, drink and sleep. He champions King
Amans’s daughter, whose elder sister has dealt unjustly with her
in regard to her inheritance, overcomes the latter’s knight (Pri-
adan le Noir), and establishes the younger sister’s rights. Later he
sees Lionel being tortured by two knights and, at the same moment,
another knight carrying off a maiden into the thick of the wood.
Despite his love for his brother, he saves the damsel first —
then returns to rescue Lioncl, who, however, has disappeared.
The devil, disguised as a priest, gives a false inter-
pretation of certain dreams which Bohort had had, and other-
wise tempts him with pretended women, really devils, but an ac-
cidental sign of the cross causes them all to vanish. He receives
now from an abbot a true exposition of the signification of his
dreams (131ff.). At a hermitage the following day Bohort finds
Lionel, who upbraids his brother for having deserted him, and
is only prevented from killing the unresisting Bohort by the inter-
vention of Calogrenant. Lionel kills Calogrenant (138) and again
attacks Bohort, who, at last, is on the point of defending him-
self, when a flame from heaven parts the two. Obeying a voice,
Bohort goes to the sea and embarks on a ship, on which he later
rejoices to discover Perceval. — Galahad, incognito, vanquishes and
wounde Gawain in a tourney, stops at a hermitage near Corbenic,
and is conducted thence in the night by a damsel to the ship
on board which were Bohort and Perceval. The three recount
their adventures to each other (p. 148). This vessel, with mira-
culous celerity, bore them to a desert, fourteen days’ journey from
Logres. Thore on the exhortation of the damsel, they all trans-
fer themselves to a magnificent, but deserted ship (Solomon’s ship),
and the damsel reveals herself as Perceval’s sister. As described
already in the Estoire (cp. p. 309, above) there was in this vessel
a beautiful bed and on this bed King David’s sword, half-drawn
from its scabbard. Only the bravest of the brave (Galahad) could
draw it. Perceval’s sister relates the story of the Dolorous Stroke
made with this sword (147), and explains the inscriptions on the

Google

366 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

sword, one as applying to Mordrain, the other to Pellinor, the
Maimed King.** The origin of the three staves of different colors
which make part of the bed is told (pp. 151ff.).%* The three com-
panions, still further, looked there upon the crown and upon an
almsbag in which they found a scroll confirming all that Perce-
val’s sister had told them. Moreover, Perceval’s sister now replaced
the tow and hemp, which had constituted the hangings of David's
sword, with other hangings, made of her own hair and braided
with jewels. She called the sword with its new ornament
‘‘L’Espee as Estraingnes Renges’’ (the Sword with the Strange
Hangings) and the sheath ‘‘Memoire de Sanc’’ (Memory of Blood).
At the request of Bohort and Perceval, Galahad allowed the damsel
to gird the sword on him and he, who was himeelf perfectly free
from all carnal sin, now vows to be the knight of Perceval’s sister,
who was, also, dedicated to a life of perpetual chastity (p. 163).

All four sail away in the ship and land near the castle of Carte-
lois. There Galahad, Bohort and Perceval slay the wicked sons
of Count Ernol(s), and Christ assures the first-named, though
a priest, that he (Galahad) has avenged him (Christ) by this
act and bids him go and heal the Maimed King. — In a forest
nearby they meet with the stag (Christ) and four lions (four
Evangelists) and in a hermit’s chapel witness a change of the
five beasts into forms that symbolize more definitely their true
significance, as expounded by the hermit. They next have a fieroe
encounter with certain knights who are seeking to obtain blood
from a virgin princess, wherewith to cure the leprous lady of
their castle. During a truce, which is to last overnight, Perce-
val’s sister, being told of the motive of their assailants, volun-
tarily yields the needed blood, but dies thereform. In accordance
with her own desire, her body is laid out in a ship and thrust

** On Pellinor as the Maimed King see Bruce, ‘‘Pelles, Pellinor
and Pellean in the Old French Arthurian Romances’, MPh., XVI,
337 ff. (1918), where earlier discussions of the character are taken
into account — also, F. Lot’s Lancelot, p. 242ff., note 8.

*’ This merely repeats the history of these three staves, given
in the Estoire. Cp. Sommer, I, 124ff.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 367

out to sea with a scroll by its side, setting forth her history (172).
Shortly after the departure of the three companions, a storm arose
which destroyed the castle. This was a divine retribution for the
slaughter of the twelve virgin princesses, who had been killed
_ there and whose graves were in an adjacent churchyard. Bohort
first left his companions to rescue a flying knight and then these
. companions separated. — By God’s grace, Lancelot is directed
to the ship which bore the dead body of Perceval’s sister, and
learns from the scroll who the girl was and what was her history.
He stays in the vessel and is later joined by Galahad, Living
thus in this vessel for upwards of six months, they achieve many
adventures together, until, at last, God sends Galahad a white
charger with the command that he should now go and finish the
adventures of Logres. The ship brings Lancelot to the Grail castle
one night after midnight (179). Lancelot goes through the rooms.
of the castle, not knowing where he is. Through the open door
of a room, which he is warned not to enter, he is permitted to
behold the Grail and a priest celebrating the mass before it. The
priest seems to Lancelot to'sink under the weight of the corpus
domini; consequently, praying for pardon of his disobedience, he
hurries to the priest’s assistance, but falls into a trance, which
lasts fourteen days (corresponding to his fourteen years of sin).
Whilst in this condition, he sees many spiritual secrets. On his
return to consciousness he learns that the castle is Corbenic and
that his quest is ended; still, he will not desist from the penance
of wearing hair-cloth. Pelles tells him of the death of Galahad’s
mother (182). On the fifth day after this, the Holy Grail is
feeding its votaries, when the doors of the palace close, of them-
selves, to exclude Hector, who endeavors to force an entrance, but
has to withdraw amid the jeers and maledictions of the people. —

Lancelot now quits Corbenic and comes to the tomb of Baude-
magus, at an abbey of white monks (Cistercians). An inscription on
this tomb declares that the dead man beneath was slain by Gawain.
Lancelot next passes the tombs of Chanaan’s brothers, and thence
returns to court. — Galahad visits Mordrain’s abbey, and the latter,
whose wounds are healed by their visit, expires contented. He

Google

368 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

achieves, moreover, the adventures of the boiling fountain and
the burning tomb (Symeu’s). The next day he meets Perceval
and for five years they wander together, before they reach the
Grail castle. During these years they brought to an end nearly
all the adventures of Logres. Finally Bohort joins them and
they all arrive at Corbenic, to the great joy of Pelles (p. 187).
Bohort and Perceval are unable to unite the pieces of the broken
sword, with which Joseph was wounded, but Galahad succeeds.
A voice warns all who have no right to sit at Christ’s table to
withdraw. Thus, besides the three questers, only three members
of the Corbenic household (Pelles, his son, Eliezer and his niece)
were left in the hall. To these are soon added three knights from
Gaul, three from Ireland, and three from Denmark. Afterwards
four damsels bring in on a bed the Maimed King, who expresses
his confidence that with Galahad’s coming his sorrow will be re-
lieved and that he will die. The voice now commands all present
(including the nine knights), save the questers, to depart. A bishop
is brought down from heaven by four angels in a rich chair and
seated at the Grail table. Letters on his forehead say that he
is Josephe. The angels make preparations for the mass, which
is conducted by Josephe, the Holy Grail being in the centre of the
table. Josephe kisses Galahad and then bids him kiss the other
questers. Finally, having assured them that they would be fed
and rewarded by the Savior, he vanishes (190). Christ, with bleed-
ing hands and feet, now rises out of the Holy Grail, feeds them
from the Grail and declares that this vessel is the dish of the
Last Supper. They will see it more clearly in the Spiritual Palace
at Sarras. He next sends the twelve knights abroad into the world
to preach the Gospel. Obeying Christ’s command, Galahad heals
the Maimed King with blood from the lance. This king now
retires to an abbey of white monks and performs many miracles. —

That night a voice bids the twelve knights depart. Galahad,
Bohort and Perceval go to the sea, where they find Solomon’s ship,
and on it the Holy Grail. The sacred vessel was thus lost forever to
the people of Logres, because of their sins. Galahad, remembering
his happiness at the Grail ceremony, longs for death, and God

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 369

promises him that his desire will be fulfilled. — The ship arrives
at Sarras and the knights carry the Holy Grail to the Spiritual
Palace, where Our Lord had consecrated Josephe the first bishop
(194). The vessel that bore the body of Perceval’s sister arrived
at Sarras at the same moment as Solomon’s ship. A lame beggar,
who, in compliance with Galahad’s request, helps to carry the
Holy Grail from the waterside to the palace, is miraculously cured
thereby. Perceval’s sister is buried in the palace. Escorant, King
of Sarras, disbelieves what the three companions tell him con-
cerning the Grail and keeps them in prison for a year, during which
period they were fed by the holy vessel. Escorant dies and on his
deathbed Galahad, Bohort and Perceval grant him forgiveness for
his injustice towards them. Against Galahad’s will, he is elected
to succeed Escorant. One year thereafter, in the Spiritual Palace,
they find Josephe kneeling before the Grail. He removes the
cover from the vessel, so that Galahad at last sees clearly the object
of his desires. He prays now for death, receives the sacrament and
expires. Angels bear his soul to heaven. At the same time Bohort
and Perceval saw a hand reach down from heaven and lift the
Grail and the lance up thither. From that day to this nobody
has ever beheld them again. Galahad was buried where he died.
Perceval and Bohort went into a hermitage and there, some four-
teen months later, Perceval, too, expired and was interred by his
sister's side. Bohort now returned to Arthur’s court. His wel-
come at court was all the warmer, because every one had supposed
that he was dead. Arthur had the adventures of the Holy Grail
as related by Bohort recorded and the record was kept in the
abbey at Salisbury. For King Henry’s sake, Walter Map drew
thence his book on the Holy Grail, which book King Henry had
translated from Latin into French (199).

5. La Mort Artu.

King Henry wished to hear how the knights mentioned in
the Queste ended their careers — hence Walter Map wrote this last
division and called it Za Mort al roi Ariu (p. 203). — On Bohort’s
return from Sarras, the people at Arthur’s court welcomed him
| Befperta, Ergdnsungsreike: 9. 24

Google

370 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

with joy, but they were deeply grieved by the news of the death
of Galahad and Perceval. Arthur had the adventures of each
quester written down. It turned out that twenty-two of the knights
who were engaged in this adventure had been slain. Gawain re-
luctantly acknowledges that, of these, he had killed eighteen, in-
cluding Baudemagus — doubtless, he says, owing to his sins. —
In order to prevent hie knights from losing the practice of arms,
the king proclaims a tournament at Winchester. In the meanwhile,
Lancelot had forgotten the vows which he had made during the
quest for the Holy Grail and within a month after his return
to court had resumed his adulterous relations with Guinevere
and in a more reckless spirit than ever. Wishing to attend the
tournament incognito, Lancelot feigned indisposition and bade his
kinsmen go without him. When Agravain, who hated Lancelot,
became aware of this, he suspected that Lancelot was really re-
maining behind for the purpose of a clandestine meeting with the
queen. Consequently, he informs Arthur of Lancelot’s intrigue
with Guinevere and of what he imagines to be Lancelot’s true
motive for not accompanying his kinsmen to Winchester. Arthur
is incredulous and will not follow the matter up. Nevertheless,
to test the truth of Agravain's suspicions, he bids the queen stay
at Camelot. Lancelot now tells Guinevere why he had feigned
illness, and, with one squire, rides by night to Winchester. On
_ the way, he stops at a castle (Escalot) which Arthur is on the point
of leaving, after having spent the previous night there. Despite
Lancelot’s effort to conceal his identity, the monarch recognizes
him. The lord of the castle, a rich vavassor, has two sons, one
of whom cannot attend the tournament. To preserve his incognito,
Lancelot exchanges armor with this young man. He permits his
host’s other son to go with him to the assembly, and he also con-
sents, though with dismay (remembering the queen), to wear a
token (a sleeve) of his host’s daughter in the combat and be her
knight. They journcy by night and put up at the house of the
young knight’s aunt, a mile from Winchester. Lancelot decides
to assist the outsiders, since their opponents (including Bohort,
Lionel and Hector) are more numerous (210). After performing

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 371

many feats of valor — particularly against his chief adversaries,
Hector and Bohort — Lancelot wins the prize for his side and
rides back to the house of his companion’s aunt, where, owing to
a wound, he is confined for six weeks. Gawain and Gaheriet make
a futile effort to discover the victor, concerning whose identity
Arthur drops vague hints.

Arthur now proclaims another tournament, which is to be
held at Taneborc?® a month hence. On his return to Camelot,
the king, with Gawain and others, again stops at Escalet.
The Maid of Escalot learns from Gawain that the knight who
wore her token had won the prize in the assembly. Gawain
makes love to the Maid, who piques him by her answer that
she is already in love with a knight not inferior to him. When
she shows him the shield which her knight had left behind
him in the exchange of arms, Gawain recognizes that it is Lance-
lot’s and tells her that she has a right to be proud of her conquest
(217). Wondering that Lancelot has been willing to bestow his
love upon a girl of lower rank than himself, Gawain bids her greet
her (supposed ) lover on his behalf. — Arthur tells Gawain of Agra-
vain’s accusations against Lancelot, but both are convinced that
the charges are false. — On their arrival at Camelot, the king and
Gawain merely say that it was a knight in red with a sleeve on his
helmet who won the tourney. Guinevere, however, learns from
Gifflet that this knight 1s Lancelot and she falls into a fury of |
jealousy. She expresses her rage to Bohort, who now learns for
the first time that his cousin had been his adversary at Winchester.
The queen’s jealousy is fostered still further by Lancelot’s pro-
longed absence from Camelot. Gawain then tells her that Lance-
lot is lingering at Escalot, because of his love for the Maid of
Escalot. The queen expresses herself to Bohort very bitterly with
respect to Lancelot’s fancied disloyalty. Much offended at this,
Lancelot’s kinsmen quit the court and, after a fruitless search,
proceed to Taneborc, in the hope that they may find him at the
tournament there. — The Maid of Escalot goes to her aunt's and
nurses Lancelot during his illness. She is desperately in love with

*° On Tanebore (Edinburgh) see Bruce, Mort Artu, p. 271.
24*

Google

372 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

him, however, and receives her death-blow, when he tells her that
he has already bestowed his heart elsewhere (226). Lancelot’s
wound prevents him from attending the tournament at Tanebore,
but he sends greetings to the queen and Gawain by a squire: the
jealous Guinevere, however, does not credit the squire’s report about
Lancelot’s illness. — After carrying off the honors of the day,
Lancelot’s relatives begin again their quest for him, whilst Arthur
proclaims still another assembly at Camelot, a month hence, with
the purpose of drawing him out of hiding. In order to get rid
of the importunate inquiries of Bohort, etc., as to Lancelot’s where-
abouts, the squire had misdirected them. When they discover the
deception, following Gawain’s advice, they all go to Escalot. Hence
the son of the vavasor of Escalot conducts them to Lancelot. The
latter now learns for the first time that it was Bohort who had
wounded him. The knights stay with him until he is well, but
they do not let him know of the queen’s anger. — On his way
back to Camelot, Arthur lingers at Tauroc and, losing his way
in the neighboring forest, is lured by Morgan to her palace (2385).
There she shows him the pictures of the history of Lancelot’s love-
affair with Guinevere, painted on the walls of his room by the
former.*® This Morgan did, in order to revenge herself on Guine-
vere. — Lancelot, having recovered, returns to Camelot with his
companions. In his last conversation with the Maid of Escalot, she
foretells her death from unrequited love. — Being still jealous,
the queen feigns illness and will not see Lancelot. Bohort upbraids
her with her conduct and advises Lancelot to absent himself from
the court until she summons him back. On Arthur’s return, he
was pleased to hear of Lancelot’s brief stay at court, for this seemed
to confute the suspicions which he had imbibed at Morgan’s pa-
lace. — A knight named Avalon, who hated Gawain with a mortal
hate, seeing the queen seated by the latter at dinner, handed her
some poisoned apples, with the idea that she, in turn, would pre-
sent them to Gawain.*? She actually gave them, however, to Ga-
heriee de Karaheu, who, after eating them, dropped dead on the

** Cp. above.
*° On this episode see Bruce, Mort Artu, pp. 274 ff.

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 373

spot (248). In the general opinion, Guinevere was guilty of murder
and so the inscription on the dead man’s tomb recorded that she
had poisoned him. — About this time Lancelot was accidentally
wounded by a huntsman in the forest and was compelled to remain
at a hermit’s for medical treatment.

In the meanwhile the tournament at Camelot came off
and Bohort won the prize after which he went immediately
in search of the absent Lancelot. — Mador de la Porte learns
about the death of his brother, Gaheries, from the epitaph
on the tomb and makes public accusation against the queen
that she had killed him. None of the knights present offer
to defend Guinevere — consequently, Arthur grants her a respite
of forty days in which to find a champion. She regrets now that
she has alienated Lancelot’s kinsmen (256). — The Maid of Escalot
has died, and, in compliance with her directions, her body is laid
in a barge with a scroll in her hand and allowed to drift down
stream to Camelot. Arthur, accompanied by Gawain, goes on board
the barge and reads the scroll in which the Maid had set forth
that her loyal but unrequited love for the best knight in the world
(Lancelot) was the cause of her death. Gawain sees from this
that he had suspected Lancelot wrongly of loving the girl. Arthur
has her buried in St. Stephen’s church and an inscription put on
the tomb, reciting the manner of her death (259). — After Lance-
lot’s wound was almost well again, he hears from a knight in the
forest concerning Guinevere’s peril. Hector and Bohort join him
thereafter and are sent by him to court to ascertain the queen's
disposition towards him. Bohort refuses to be the queen’s cham-
pion and on account of her treatment of his cousin, derives a
malicious pleasure from her present predicament. Gawain and
other knights are convinced of her guilt and will not respond to
Arthur’s appeals on her behalf. Finally, when Guinevere be-
seeches Bohort again, he promises to be her champion, in case
no better knight presents himself. — On the day appointed, Lance-
lot, known only to Bohort and Hector, appears as the queen’s
champion. He is viotor and Mador surrenders his sword. After
the queen’s acquittal, she and Lancelot renew their amours, and in

Google

374 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

so reckless a manner that Gawain and his brothers all become
cognizant of the intrigue. One day as they were discussing the
matter together, Arthur chanced to come upon them, and, having
overheard a remark of Agravain’s, demanded of them that they
should tell him what they were talking about. At first, they all
refuse, but, finally Agravain, under threats of violence, reveals
the truth to the king. On Agravain’s suggestion, it is agreed that
tho next day Arthur, with some of his knights, shall go on a hunt
and that, when Lancelot tries to take advantage of his absence,
to visit the queen, Agravain, Guerrehes and Mordred shall proceed
to catch him in the act. Notwithstanding the warnings of Gawain
as to the danger of this enterprise, which he and Gaheriet decline to
have any part in, Arthur adopts the plan. He treats Lancelot so
coldly that evening that Bohort expresses the belief to his cousin
that Agravain or Morgan has betrayed him. — Agravain’s plot is
carried out: the two lovers are caught in the queen’s chamber
together, but, on Bohort’s advice, Lancelot had carried his sword
with him. Consequently, he is able to slay one of Agravain’s party
and puts the rest to flight. Lancelot, Bohort, and Hector now
take refuge in the woods, not far away, and wait there, in order
to save Guinevere, when need should arise. The next day the
barons condemn Guinevere to die — only Gawain threatened to
renounce his allegiance to Arthur, should the latter allow the sen-
tence to be carried out. She is to be burned at the stake and
Agravain with forty knights is to prevent any rescue. The queen
had been already led forth, when Lancelot and his companions,
having heard, through a squire, of the impending execution, charged
into the procession. Lancelot slew Agravain and Gaheriet (the
latter, without knowing who he was) and Bohort, Guerrches (281).
After a consultation, they take Guinevere to Lancelot’s castle,
Joyous Gard. Arthur is horrified on being told of the death of
his nephews and he puts an embargo on the ports of his kingdom,
to keep Lancelot from escaping. Gawain and Arthur both utter
laments over the body of Gaheriet, especially, and swoon from
grief. After the funeral of the dead brothers, Arthur vows venge-
ance on Lancelot and decides to besiege Joyous Gard, but, before

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 375

starting on his expedition, he fills the 72 vacant seats at the
Round Table.

In the meanwhile, Lancelot was preparing for the siege,
having summoned knights to his aid from Benoic, Sorelois,
and other lands. — When Arthur arrives before Joyous Gard,
Lancelot sends him a message by a dameel, offering to prove his
innocence in & combat with any two of the king’s knights, or to
submit the matter to the judgment of Arthur’s court (295). Ga-
wain, however, exasperated by his brother’s death, hardens his
uncle’s heart against these offers, although the damsel reminds him
of his prophetic vision at Corbenic.*! Bohort and Hector, with a
band of men, had been placed in ambush and they attack Arthur's
host the next day, at the same time that Lancelot sallied forth
from the castle. When night fell, there had been no decisive
result. — Lancelot’s men renew the contest early on the morrow and
Bohort is severely wounded. Lancelot merely covers himself, when
attacked by Arthur — otherwise, does not defend himself. Even
when Hector has unborsed the king and wishes to slay him, Lance-
lot will not permit him and remounte his sovereign courteously,
which touches Arthur deeply (306). — The siege had lasted two
months when the Pope, hearing of Arthur’s marital troubles, inter-
vened and threatened him with an interdict, if he did not take
back his lawful spouse. Arthur is willing to do so and Lancelot
is ready to return her, notwithstanding the urgent advice of Bohort
to the contrary. The queen, too, consents to go back on condition
that her consort will allow Lancelot and his people to return to
their own country unmolested. The next day Lancelot hands her
back to the king. At the instigation of Gawain, who vows in-
cessant war, until he has avenged Gaheriet, Arthur will not pro-
mise Lancelot to refrain from attacking him in his (Lancelot’s) own
country. Before leaving Logres, Lancelot has his shield (after-
wards venerated as a relic by the people) hung up in St. Stephen’s
at Camelot. He also sends treasures to the clergy there, soliciting
their prayers. Having set sail for his native land, he bids a

*' Cp. I, 416, above.

Google

876 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

touching farewell to Logres (p. 314). After they have reached
their destination, Lancelot bestows the kingdom of Benoyce on
Bohort, that of Gannes on Lionel, keeping Gaul for himself. —
Still incited by Gawain, the next spring Arthur invades Gaul and
wages war on Lancelot. Before sailing, he accepts Mordred’s offer
to guard the queen and the kingdom during his absence. Near
Gannes an old lady on a white palfrey predicts Arthur’s failure
to capture that city and reminds Gawain of the vision which he
had seen at Corbenic foreshadowing his death in this war.** There
were now bloody encounters between Arthur’s and Lancelot’s men,
but there was no decisive victory for either side. — In the mean-
while, Mordred ingratiates himself with high and low in Logres
by every means and resolves to marry the queen (321). Accord-
ingly, he forges a letter which pretends to be from Arthur and
in which the king, mortally wounded, is made to request the barons
to elect Mordred as his successor and turn over Guinevere to him
as his wife. The barons proceed to comply with the terms of
this request, but Guinevere objects. Obtaining the aid of her
cousin, Labor, to whom she communicastes the secret of Mordred’s
incestuous birth,** she shuts herself up with a band of men in the
Tower of Logres and successfully holds out against Mordred (327).
Furthermore, she despatches a squire to Gaul, in order to ascertain
the truth about Arthur, and, in case the latter is dead, to beg
Lancelot for aid. — About this time Gawain challenges Lancelot
to settle the matters at issue between the two armies by a duel.
Lancelot reluctantly accepts, provided Gawain will present sureties
that he will keep his covenant. At the meeting where this agree-
ment is executed, Arthur and Lancelot wish to avoid further strife,
and the latter shows that he still loves his comrade-in-arms, but
Gawain is implacable. Even the protests of Yvain and the general
condemnation of his own side leave him unmoved (pp. 336f.).
The combat takes place the next day. Although they had fought
fiercely for hours, with only a brief interval of rest, as noon ap-
proached, to Lancelot’s amazement, Gawain became as fresh as

** Cp. above. °° Cp. I, 441, above.

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 377

if he had not fought at all. This was due to the gift. which God
had conferred on him at the time of his baptism, in answer to the
prayer of the hermit who baptized him: according to this gift,
Gawain’s strength always increased towards midday (340). Never-
thelees, Lancelot held out against him, until his strength fell again
to the normal.

The fight continued until vespers and Lancelot could have
easily slain his opponent, who, though exhausted, refused to
yield, but, out of old affection, he spared him, and, at last,
is excused by Arthur from further combat. Gawain has suffered
an especially bad wound on the head. — Arthur now goes to the
city of Meaux (in Gaul), where Gawain begins to recover, and here
learns that the Romans are moving through Burgundy to attack
him (345). The emperor of the Romans tells Arthur’s envoys
that he has come to avenge the death of Froille d’Alemaigul (slain
by Arthur in a previous war) and to claim tribute from their
king. Adopting Gawain’s advice, Arthur attacks first. Gawain
kills the emperor’s nephew and Arthur the emperor, but the old
wound which Gawain had received in his duel with Lancelot bursts
open and, in the end, proves mortal. Just after his victory over
the Romans, Arthur receives his wife’s message in regard to the
treason of Mordred and hurries back to Logres (349). As Gawain
feels himself dying, he relents in his bitterness towards Lancelot
and advises Arthur to send for his old friend to aid him against
Mordred. — Mordred, by this time, had so confirmed his hold
on the barons that they consented to support him in his war
against Arthur. Raising the siege of Guinevere’s tower, he ad-
vances against the king, whereupon the queen flees to a convent
in a forest. — Shortly after Arthur’s host has landed at Dover,
Gawain expires. Before his death, he warns Arthur against com-
bating Mordred and begs that the epitaph on their common grave
should record that he and Gaheriet had been killed by Lancelot,
through their own fault. Arthur’s sorrow over his dead nephew
is boundless. The lord of Beloe slays his wife from jealousy on
account of the grief which she displays over the death of Gawain.
The body is finally interred in St. Stephen’s at Camelot. — In

Google

378 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

a vision the spirit of Gawain again urges his uncle not to meet
Mordred and to send for Lancelot. Arthur, however, feeling that
he has wronged Lancelot, is ashamed to do so.

On the way to meet Mordred, the king has still an-
other vision, in which he sees himself dashed from Fortune's
Wheel. An archbishop, whom he consults about these dreams,
discovers impending evil in them, but Arthur will not heed
his advice to turn back. Later, on Salisbury Plain, the arch-
bishop observes Merlin’s inscription on a rock there, foretel-
ling a battle on this plain by which the kingdom of Logres
will be orphaned, and reads it to Arthur. The king spurns
an insolent demand of Mordred’s that he shall quit the country
(363). In the ensuing battle Arthur’s army is inferior in num-
bers to Mordred’s which embraces Saxon, Irish, Scotch, and Welsh
divisions. Towards the end of the battle, which lasted all day,
on Arthur’s side, only the king, Lucan, and Gifflet are left alive.
Arthur and Mordred now wound each other mortally and Lucan
and Gifflet mount the former on a horse and take him to the
Black Chapel. The next day the king kills Lucan unintentionally
by his embrace and rides away to the sea with Gifflet. There they.
dismount and Arthur sends Gifflet with the sword, Excalibur,
to throw it into a neighboring lake. Gifflet is tempted by the
rich weapon and twice returns with the false statement that he
has cast it in, but finally in éach instance has to confess the un-
truth. The third time he really throws it in, and a hand, rising
from the lake, seizes the weapon, brandishes it three times, and
disappears with it (380). At Arthur's command, Gifflet now leaves
him, but from a hill, not far distant, sees Morgan, the king’s sister,
come in a boat full of ladies, and bear her brother away.

They buried him at the Black Chapel, as Gifflet discovered three
days afterwards, when he came upon the two tombs there — one Ar-
thur’s and the other Lucan’s. Gifflet turned hermit, but, himself, died
eighteen days later. Mordred’s sons now make themselves masters
of the kingdom. — Having heard of Arthur's end, Guinevere
takes the veil and dies shortly thereafter. Lancelot and his kinsmen
return to Logres and at Winchester overthrow and slay Mordred’s

Google

Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle 379

sons, but Lionel is killed in the battle (385f.). From the battle-
field Lancelot rode away aimlessly, mourning for the queen and
Lionel, until he came to a hermitage, on top of a rocky mountain,
where he finds the Archbishop of Canterbury and his own cousin,
Blyobleris. He, too, becomes a hermit here. After the battle
at Winchester, Bohort went back to his own country, but Hector
rode about Logres, in quest of Lancelot, until he found him in
his hermitage. Hector now devotes himself to the service of God
and joins his half-brother in the hermitage. Four years later, he
dies and is entombed there.

Not long thereafter, Lancelot, too, dies, having besought his
companions on his death-bed to bury him at Joyous Gard, with
Galehaut. The archbishop, who was sleeping outside of the her-
mitage at the time of Lancelot’s passing away, first knew of
the event through a vision of angels carrying his friend’s soul
to heaven. Lancelot’s body was buried at Joyous Gard, as he had
desired and, owing to the warning of a hermit, Bohort arrived
at the castle the very day of the obsequies. He took Lancelot’s
place in the hermitage and continued to live there the remainder
of his life.

Thus Master Walter Map ends the history of Lancelot. Any
one who should pretend to relate anything more on the subject
will be lying (891).

Google

Chapter VII.
A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical
Literature.

The following bibliographical list corresponds to Parts I, II,
and III of the present treatise. Among the metrical romances,
consequently, it includes only those that were written by Chrétien,
by the continuators of his Perceval, and by Robert de Boron. The
bibliography of the other French metrical romances will be found
in Part IV of this work; so, too, with the bibliography of all
the Arthurian romances in the various continental languages, ex-
cept French. The writer has purposely omitted from the follow-
ing list works on the Arthurian theme which, in his opinion, are
without value; on the other hand, he has endeavored to list all
books, articles, etc. — especially, of the last sixty or seventy years
— that seem to constitute substantial contributions to our know-
ledge of the subject.

As regards the arrangement of the titles in any particular
section of the list, the texts are given first — then, as a rule,
general works on the subject — after that, special articles, ete.,
approximately in the same order as is observed in the discussion
of the subjects in question in the main division of the treatise.
The list does not embrace publications that deal simply with matters
of style or textual criticism. Moreover, no book-reviews are re-
corded, eave those that seemed to possess the value of original con-
tributions to the subject.

We have the following special works on the Arthurian theme:
Joseph Ritson, The Life of King Arthur (London, 1825), M. W.
Maccallum, Tennyson's Idylls of the King and Arthurian Story
from the XVI th century (London and New York, 1894) — which,
notwithstanding its title, contains 108 pages on the mediaeval liter-
ature of the subject; — S. H. Gurteen, The Arthurian Epic (ibid.,

; Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 881

1895) — a worthless book; — Howard Maynadier, The Arthur of
the English Poets (Boston and New York, 1907) — more than half
devoted to the Middle Ages; — W. Lewis Jones, King Arthur in
History and Legend (Cambridge, 1911). It did not enter, how-
ever, into the plan of these writers to give copious lists of the criti-
cal literature of the subject. Up to the present, accordingly, the
most valuable bibliographical aids in the study of the matiére
de Bretagne have been G. Paris’s lists in the Histoire Littéraire
de la France, Vol. XXX, pp. 111ff. (1888) and Manuel, pp. 296 ff.
(fifth ed., 1914), the citations in Gréber’s Grundriss, Band II,
Abt. I, pp. 491ff., 785ff., 996ff. (1898—1902), and, above all,
the admirable reports on publications relating to the mediaeval ro-
mances and Celtic literature which appeared periodically in Karl
Vollmdller’s Krattscher Jahresbericht tiber die Fortschritte der Ro-
manischen Philologie, covering the years 1890—1912. These re-
ports were prepared by such authorities as E. Freymond, A. Hilka,
J. Loth, L. C. Stern, ete.

Part I (Traditions, Chronicles, Lays and Romances)

For editions of Gildas and Nennius, cp. I, pp. 5—7, above.
For fuller bibliographies of these two writers cp. R. H. Fletcher's
Arthurian Material in the Chronicles, pp. 2f. and 8f., note,
respectively. For the articles of A. Anscombe and A. Wade-
Evans, attacking the authenticity of Gildas, and replies to the
same, cp. II, p. 49, note 11.

Annales Cambriae, edited by Egerton Phillimore from MS. Harley,
3859, in Y Cymmrodor, IX, 152 ff. (1888). Phillimore’s text is
reproduced by J. Loth, Les Mabinogion®, II, 370 ff. (Paris 1913).

For other pre-Geoffreyan chronicles cp. I, p. 11, note 22, above.

William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, edited by William
Stubbs, Rolls Series, 2 vols. (London, 1887— 1889).

John Rhys, Celtic Britain (third edition, London, 1904).

W. H. Dickinson, Arthur in Cormwall (London, 1900).

H. M. Chadwick, The Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge, 1907).

R. H. Fletcher, The Arthurian Material of the Chronicles, especially
those of Great Britain and France: Harvard Studies and Notes
in Philology and Literature, X (Boston, 1906).

Ernst Windisch, Das Keltische Britannien bis zu Kaiser Arthur: Des
XXIX Bandes der Abhandlungen der Philologisch-Historischen

Google

382 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Klasse der Konig]. S&chsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
No. VI (Leipzig, 1912).

Adolf Holtzmann, Artus, Franz Pfeiffer's Germania, XII, 257 ff. (1867).

J. S. Stuart-Glennie, Arthurian Localities: Introduction to Part II
(1869) of the E. E. T. S. edition of the Middle English prose
Merlin (Original Series, No. 36).

Arthur de la Borderie, L'Historia Britonum attribuée & Nennius et
l'Historia Britannica avant Geofiroi de Monmouth (Paris and
London, 1883).

Pio Rajna, Gli eroi Brettoni nell’ onomastica Italiana, Romania,
XVII, 161 ff. 355ff. (1888). — Cp. H. Zimmer, Gittingische
Gelehrte Anzeigen, Oct. 1, 1890, pp. 830f., note.

For the critical literature concerning the Arthurian figures
on the Porta della Pescheria of the Modena Cathedral, cp. I,
p. 14f., above.

G. Heeger, Uber die Trojanersagen der Britten (Munich, 1886).

Heinrich Zimmer, review of G. Paris's Romans ens vers du cycle de
la Table Ronde (Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. XXX)
in Gott. G. A., Oct. 1, 1890.

John Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend (Oxford, 1891).

H. Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus (Berlin, 1893).

E. W. B. Nicholson, King Arthur and Gildas, The Academy, Oct. 12,
1895.

L. Duchesne, Nennius Retractatus, Revue Celtique, XV, 174ff. (1894).
Richard Thurneysen, review of H. Zimmer's Nennius Vindicatus in
Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie, XXVIII, 80ff. (1895).

L. Duchesne, L'Historia Britonum, Revue Celtique, XVII, 1 ff. (1896).
R. Thurneysen, review of Mommsen’s edition of Gildas and Nennius,

Zs. f. celt. Ph., 1, 157 ff. (1896).

W. W. Newell, Doubts concerning the British History attributed to
Nennius, PMLA, XX, 622 ff. (1905).

A. Natt, Celtic and Mediaeval Romance: Popular Studies in Mythology,
Romance and Folklore, No. 1 (London, 1899).

Jessie L. Weston, King Arthur and his Knights, a Survey of Arthurian
Romance, tbid., No. 4 (1899).

Ferdinand Lot, Nouvelles études sur la provenance du cycle arthurien,
Romania, XXX, 1 ff. (1901).

Abbé de la Rue, Essais historiques sur les bardes, les jongleurs, et
les trouvéres normands et anglo-normands (3 vols., Caen, 1834).

San Marte (A. Schulz), Gottfried’s von Monmouth Historia Regum
Britanniae mit literar-bistorischer Einleitung und ausfihrlichen
Anmerkungen, und Brut Tysylio, altw&lsche Chronik in deutscher
Ubersetzung (Halle, 1854).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 383

J. E. Lloyd, History of Wales down to the Edwardian Conquest, II,
524 (2 vols. Oxford, 1911). |

Sir Frederick Madden, The Historia Britonum of Geoffrey of Monmouth,
The Archaeological Journal, XV, 299 ff. (1858).

H. Zimmer, Bretonische Elemente der Arthursage des Gottfried von
Monmouth, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XII*, 231#f. (1890).

H. L. D. Ward, article on Geoffrey of M., Catalogue of Romances in
the Department of MSS. in the British Museum, I, 203 ff. (1893).

H. L. D. Ward, Postscript to the article upon Geoffrey in the Cata-
logue of Romances, Vol. I (1883), Anglia, XXIV, 383ff. (1901).

W. Lewis Jones, Geoffrey of Monmouth, The Transactions of the
Honorable Society of Cymmrodorion, Session, 1898—99,
pp. 52 ff.

R. H. Fletcher, Two Notes on the Historia Regum Britanniae of
Geoffrey of Monmouth, PMLA, XVI, 461ff. (1901).

— on Geoffrey in Zhe Arthurian Material in the Chronicles, etc.,
pp. 43ff. (1906).

E. Windisch, on Geoffrey in Das Kelttsche Britannien bis zu Kaiser
Arthur, pp. 123 ff. (Leipzig, 1912).

F. Zarncke and B. Ten Brink, Uber das Verh&ltnis des Brut y Tysylio
zu Galfrid’s Hist. Reg. Brit., Ebert's Jahrbuch fiir englische
und romanische Philologie, V, 249 ff. (1863).

W. W. Newell, Arthurian Notes, MLN, XVII, 277f. (1902).

H. Tausendfreund, Vergil und Gottfried von Monmouth (Halle, 1913).
Halle diss.

Paul Feuerherd, Geoffrey of Monmouth und das Alte Testament
(Halle, 1915). Halle diss.

Hertha Brandenburg, Galfrid von Monmouth und die frihmittelonglischen
Chronisten (Berlin, 1918). Berlin diss.

H. Salter, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Oxford, English Historical
Review, XXXIV, 382 ff. (1919).

A. Leitzmann, Bemerkungen zu Galfrid von Monmouth, Archiv f. d.
Studium der neueren Sprachen, Vol. 134, pp. 373#f. (1916).

Der Miinchener Brut: Gottfried von Monmouth in franzésischen Versen
aus der einzigen Mtinchener Handschrift zum ersten Mal heraus-
gegeben von Konrad Hoffmann und Karl Vollmdller (Halle, 1877).

Geffrei Gaimar: L’Estorie des Engles, edited by T. D. Hardy and
C. T. Martin for the Rolls Series (2 vols. London, 1889).

Otto Wendeburg, Ueber die Bearbeitung von Gottfried von Monmouths
Historia Regum Britanniae in der HS. Brit. Mus. Harl. 1605
(Braunschweig, 1881). Erlanger diss.

Le Roman de Brut par Wace, poete du XII® siécle publié pour Ja pre-
miére fois ... par Le Roux de Lincy (2 vols. Rouen, 1836— 1838).

Google

384 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

E. Du Méril, La vie et les ouvrages de Wace, Ebert's Jahrbuch fiir
romanische und englische Literatur, I, 1ff. (1859).

G. Paris, Romania, IX, 592f. (1880) *.

B. Ten Brink, Wace and Galfrid von Monmouth, Ebert’s Jahrbuch,
TX, 241 ff. (1868).

Albert Ulbrich: Uber das Verhaltnis von Wace’s Roman de Brut zu
seiner Quelle, der Historia Regum Britanniae des Gottfried von
Monmouth, Romanische Forschungen, XXVI, 181 ff. (Erlangen,
1908).

Annette B. Hopkins, The Influence of Wace on the Arthurian Romances
of Crestien de Troies (Menasha, Wis. 1913). Chicago diss.

Leo Waldner, Wace's Brut und seine Quellen (Karlsruhe, 1914).
Jena diss.

Katharina Schreiner, Die Sage von Hengest und Horsa: Entwickelung
und Nachleben bei den Dichtern und Geschichtsschreibern Eng-
lands. Germanistische Studien, Heft 12 (Berlin, 1921).

Layamon’s Brut or Chronicle of Britain; a Poetical Semi-Saxon
Paraphrase of The Brut of Wace, now first published from the
Cottonian Manuscripts in the British Museum, accompanied by a
Literal Translation, Notes, and a Grammatical Glossary, by Sir
Frederic Madden. Published for the Society of Antiquaries of
London (3 vols. London, 1847) *.

R. Wuelcker, Uber die Quellen Layamons, PBB, III, 524 ff. (1876).

P. Branscheid, Uber die Quellen des stabreimenden Morte Arthure,
Anglia, Anzeiger, VIII, 179ff. (1885).

A. C. L. Brown, The Round Table before Wace, [Harvard] Studtes
and Notes in Philology and Literature, VU, 183 #f. (1900).

— Welsh Traditions in Layamons Brut, MPh., I, 95ff. (1903).

R. H. Fletcher: Did Layamon make any use of Geoffrey's Historia?
PMLA, XVIII, 91 ff. (1903).

R. Imelmann: Layamon, Versuch tiber seine Quellen (Berlin, 1906).

J. D. Bruce: Some proper names in Layamon's Brut, not represented
in Wace or Geoffrey of Monmouth, MLN, XXVI, 65ff. (1911).

— The Development of the Mort Arthur Theme in Mediaeval Ro-
mance, RR, IV, 403 ff. (1918) — particulary, pp. 451 ff.°.

1 For a fall bibliography of Wace's life and writings cp. Miss A. B.
Hopkins’s thesis named below — especially, p. 10, note 24a.

* For fall bibliographies of Layamon, cp. B. 8S. Monroe, JEGcPh., VII,
no. 1, pp. 139ff. (1908), and J. E. Wells, A Manual of the Writings ins
Middle English 1050—1400, 792ff. (Yale University Press, 1916). I give
above only the publications that are important for the sources.

® On the so-called Martin of Rochester, cp. I, 29, note 59, above.

; Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 885

Frances Lytle Gillespy, Layamon’s Brut: a Comparative Study in
Narrative Art, University of California Publications in Philo-
logy, Ill, 361 ff. (1916).

R. H. Fletcher, Some Arthurian Fragments from Fourteenth Centary
Chronicles, PMLA, XVIII, 84 ff. (1908).

William F. Skene The Four Ancient Books of Wales (2 vols. Edin-
burgh, 1868).

J. Rhys and J. Gwenogvryn Evans, The Text of the Mabinogion and
other Welsh tales from the Red Book of Hergest (Oxford, 1887).

J. G. Evans, The White Book Mabinogion, Welsh Tales and Romances
reproduced from the Peniarth Manuscripts. (Pwllheli, 1909 —
though dated 1907).

The Mabinogion from the Welsh of the Llyfr Coch o Hergest (The
Red Book of Hergest) in the Library of Jesus College, Oxford,
translated with Notes by Lady Charlotte Guest (reprint, London,
1877).

— with notes by Alfred Nutt (London and New York, 1902).

J. Loth, Les Mabinogion du Livre Rouge de Hergest avec les variants
du Livre Blanc de Rhydderch, traduits du gallois, etc. (second
edition, 2 vols. Paris, 1913).

For the bibliography of the controversy concerning the re-
lations of the Mabinogion to the French romances — especially,
Chrétien’s, cp. If, 63-4, above.

Chapters on Die keltischen Literaturen in the volume, entitled Die
romanischen Literaturen mit Etnschluss des Keltischen (Berlin
and Leipzig, 1909) in Paul Henneberg’s cooperative work, Die
Kultur der Gegenwart.

H. D. Arbois de Jubainville, Cours de littérature celtique (9 vols.,
Paris — earlier volumes undated, vol. 9 dated 1900).

G. Paris, Histoire littéraire de la France, XXX, 7 ff. (Paris, 1888).

— review of the same by H. Zimmer, Gétt. G. A., Oct. 1, 1890.

Thomas Stephens, The Literature of the Kymry (second edition, London,
1876).

M. Wilmotte, L’évolution du roman francais aux environs de 1150:
Académie Royale de Belgique (Bruxelles). Bulletins de la Classe
des Lettres, etc. 1908, pp. 327ff. — and the Note Additionelle
thereto, pp. 475 fi.

G. Ehrismann, M&rchen im hifischen Epos, PBB, XXX, 14 ff. (1905).

H. Zimmer, Uber direkte Handelsverbindungen Westgallions. mit Irland
im Altertam und friihen Mittelalter, Sitzungsberichte der Kénigl.
Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-Hist. Klasse tor
1909, pp. 363 ff., 430ff., 543ff., 582ff. -— for 1910, pp. 1031 ff.

Bistperia, Ergdusungsreihe: 9. 25

Google

386 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

H. Zimmer, Auf welchem Wege kamen die Goidelen vom Kontinent
nach Irland? Abhandlungen of the same Academy for 1912.

— Der Kulturhistorische Hintergrund in der altirischen Heldensage,
Sitzungsberichte der Kénigl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, Philos.-Hist. Klasse, 1911, IX, 174. — reviewed
by J. Vendryes, Revue Celtique, XXXII, 232 ff. (1911).

E. Faral, Recherches sur les sources latines des contes et romans
courtois du moyen age (Paris, 1913). — reviewed by M. Wil-
motte, Romania, XLIII, 110 ff. (1914) and F. M. Warren, MLN,
June, 1914.

W. W. Newell, King Arthur and the Round Table (2 vols., Boston,
1897).

F. M. Luzel: De l’authenticité des chants du Barzaz-Breiz de M. de
la Villemargqué (Paris, 1872).

John Rhys, The Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by Celtic
Heathendom: Hibbert Lectures for 1886 (London, 1888).

San Marte (A. Schulz), Die Arthur-Sage und die Mahrchen des rothen
Buchs von Hergest: Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-
Literatur, Abt. II, Band 2 (Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1842).

— Beitrige zur bretonischen und celtisch-germanischen Heldensage
op. cit., Band 3 (ibid. 1847).

W. Golther, Zur Frage nach der Entstehung der bretonischen oder
Artus-Epen, Zs. fiir vergletchende Literaturgeschtchte, Neue
Folge, Ill, 211 ff: (1890).

— Beziehungen zwischen franzdsischer und keltischer Literatur im
Mittelalter, ibid., pp. 409 ff. :

H. Zimmer, review of A. Nutt’s Studtes on the Legend of the Holy
Grail, Gott. G. A., June 10, 1890.

— Beitrage zur Namenforschung in den altfranz$sischen Arthurepen,
Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XUI', 1ff. (1891).

Franz Ptitz, Zur Geschichte der Entwicklung der Artursage, Zs. f.
Jrz. Spr. u. Litt, XIV’, 161 ff. (1892).

F. Lot, Celtica, Romania, XXIV, 321 ff. (1895).

— Etudes sur la provenance du cycle arthurien, ibid., 497 ff, XXV,
1 ff. (1896).

— Nouvelles études sur Ja provenance du cycle arthurien, ibid. XX VII,
1ff. 321 ff. (1899), XXX, 1ff. (1901).

J. Loth, Le roi Loth des romans de la Table Ronde, Revue Celtique,
XVI, 84#t. (1893).

Jessie L. Weston, The Legend of Sir Gawain (London, 1897). Grimm
Library, no. 7.

Ernst Brugger, Ueber die Bedeutung von Bretagne, Breton, in mittel-
alterlichen Texten, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XX’, 79ff. (1898).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 387

E. Phillimore’s note on the triads in the Middle English Merlin,
Part IV, p. XCVIII, note 3, Early English Text Society (London,
1899).

Wendelin Foerster, Introductions to his editions of Chrétien’s romances
— especially, the one to Der Karrenritter (Lancelot) und das
Wilhelmsleben (Guillaume d’ Angleterre) von Christian von
Troyes (Halle, 1899).

E. Freymond, Artus’ Kampf mit dem Katzenungetiim: Sonderabzug
aus: Beitrige zur romanischen Philologie, Festgabe fiir Gustav
Gréber (Halle, 1899).

John Rhys, Celtic Folklore, Welsh and Manx (2 vols., Oxford, 1901).

E. Anwyl, The Four Branches of the Mabinogi, Zs. tf celt. ’Ph.,
277 ff. (1896), II, 124¢f. III, 1238 ff.

John Rhys’s Preface to Le Morte D’ Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory
in the Everyman’s Library edition (2 vols., London, 1906).

W. J. Gruffydd, The Mabinogion, Transactions of the Honourable
Society of Cymmrodorion, Session 1912—1913.

Josef Baudis, The Mabinogion, Folk-Lore, X XVII, 31ff. (1916).

J. Loth, Contributions 4 l'étude des romans de la Table Ronde (Paris,
1912). — continued Revue Celtique, XXXIV, 365 ff. (1913),
XXXVII, 317 ff. (1917—1919).

Gideon Huet, Notes dhistoire littéraire I. Le témoignage de Wace
sur les fables arthuriennes, Moyen Age, XIX, 234f. (1916).

B. de Roquefort, Poésies de Marie de France, poéte anglo-normand du
XIDI® siécle, Vol. I (Paris, 1819).

Karl Warnke, Die Lais der Marie de France ... mit vergleichenden
Anmerkungen von Reinhold Kohler (second edition, 1900) *.

E. Hépffner, Marie de France: Les Lais, Bibliotheca Romanica, No’s.
274, 275, 277, 278 (Strabburg, 1921).

F. Wolf, Ueber die Lais, Sequenzen und Leiche (Heidelberg, 1841).

Edith Rickert; Marie de France, Seven of her lays done into English
(London and New York, 1901).

Wilhelm Hertz, Spielmannsbuch (fourth edition, Stuttgart and Berlin,
1912).

John Charles Fox, Marie de France, English Historical Review,
XXV, 303 ff. (1910).

— Mary, Abbess of Shaftesbury, ibid., XXVI, 317 ff. (1911).

Emil Winkler, Franzisische Dichter ‘dee Mittelalters II: Marie de
France: Kaiser. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philo-

ee ee

‘ For editions of the anonymous lays, see below. For bibliographies
of the lays, in general, see the introduction to Warnke’s edition.

25*

Google

388 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

sophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 188. Band, 3. Ab-
handlung (Wien, 1918).

Giulio Bertoni, Maria di Francia, Nuova Antologia, Sept. 1, 1920.

Emil Schistt, L’amour et les amoureux dans les Iais de Marie de
France (Lund, 1889).

J. Bédier, Les lais de Marie de France, Revue des deux Mondes,
CVII, 885 ff. (Oct. 15, 1891).
W.-H. Schofield, Chancer’s Franklin’s Tale, PMLA, XVI, 405 ff. (1901).
Pio Rajna, Le origini della novella narrata dal Frankeleyn nei Canter-
burg Tales del Chaucer, Romania, XXXII, 204 (1909).
Lucien Foulet, Marie de France et les lais bretons, Zs. f. rom. Ph.,
XXIX, 19 ff. (1905).

— English Words in the Lats of Marie de France, MLN, XX, 109ff.
(1905).

—— The Prologue of Sir Orfeo, ibid., XXI, 46 ff. (1906).

— Le Prologue du Franklin’s Tale et les lais bretons, 7s. f. rom.
Ph., XXX, 698tf. (1906). |

— Marie de France et la légende de Tristan, tbid., XXXII, 161ft.,
257 ff. (1908).

— Thomas and Marie in their relation to the conteurs, MLN, X XIII,
205 ff. (1908).

P. Voelker, Die Bedeutungsentwickelung des Wortes Roman, Zs. f.
rom. Ph., X, 485ff. (1887).

G. Paris, Les romans en vers du cycle de la Table Ronde, Histoire
Littéraire de la France, XXX, 11f. (Paris, 1888).

Gustav Grober, Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, LU. Band,
1. Abteilung, pp. 491 ff. (1898), 785ft. (1901).

M. Wilmotte, Les origines du roman breton, Moyen Age, IV, 186 ft. (1891).

J. Loth, Des nouvelles théories sur l'origine des romans arthuriens,
Revue Celtique, XIII, 475ff. (1892). _

Fritz Seiffert, Ein Namenbuch zu den altfranzdsischen Artusepen,
Teil I (Greifswald, 1882).

F. Lot. Glastonbury et Avalon, Romania, XXVII, 553¢f. (1897).

F. M. Warren, The Island of Avalon, MLN, XIV, 93f. (1899).

Lacy Allen Paton, Studies in the Fairy Mythology of Arthurian Ro-
mance: Radcliffe College Monographs, No. 13 (Boston, 1903).

E. Brugger, Beitrage zur Erklarang der arthurischen Geographie I,
Estregales, ae frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXVII', 69 ¢f. (1904), II,
Gorre, XXVIII", 1 ff. (1905).

A.C. L. Brown, The Round Table before Wace. [Harvard] Studies
and Notes in Philology and Literature, VII, 183ff. (1900).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 389

Lewis F. Mott; The Round Table, PMLA, XX, 231 ff. (1905).

— review of the same by Brugger, Za. f. “frz. Spr. wu. Intt., XXIX*
238 ft. (1906).

Jessie L. Weston, A hitherto unconsidered aspect a the Round Table,
Mélanges offerts & M. Maurice Wilmotte (Paris, 1910).

A. Nutt and Kuno Meyer, The Voyage of Bran (2 vols. London,
1895-7): Grimm Library, No. 6.

Carrie A. Harper, Carados and the Serpent, MLN, XIII, 417 ff. (1898).

G. Paris, Caradoc et le Serpent, Romania, XXVIII, 214 ff. (1899).

F. Lot, Caradoc et Saint Paterne, tbid. 508 ff.

G. Huet, Le chateau tournant dans la Suite du Merlin, Romania,
XL, 235 ff. (1911).

G. Paris, Cliges, Journal des Savants, Feb., June, July, August,
December, 1902 — reprinted, Mélanges G. Paria, I, 229 ff.
(Paris, 1910).

G. L. Kittredge, Arthur and Gorlagon: [Harvard] Studies and Notes,
VIIL (1903).

— A Study of Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge, Mass. , 1916).

Axel Ahlstrém, Sur l'origine du Chevalier au lion, Mélanges de philo-
logie romane dediés a Carl Wahlund (Macon, 1896).

A. C. L. Brown, Iwain, a Study in the Origins of Arthurian Romance:
[Harvard] Studies and Notes, VIII (1908). — Cp. Nitze’s
review, MLN, XIX, 82 ft. (1904).

-- The Knight of the Lion, PMLA, XX, 678 ff. (1905).

— Chrétien's , Yvain“, MPh., IX, 109 #. (1911).

— On the Independent Character’ of the Welsh Owain, RR, III,
143 ff. (1911). |

Rudolf Zenker, Forschungen zur Artusepik, I, Ivainstudien (Halle, 1921)°.

For Arthurian romance in Irish and Gaelic, ep. I, 92ff.
and notes, above.
J. C. Hodges, Two Otherworld Stories, MLN, XXXII, 280 tt. (1917).

Ch. Potvin, Bibliographie de Chrestien de Troyes: comparaison des
manuscrits de Perceval le Gallois (Bruxelles, Leipzig, Gand,
Paris, 1863).

W. W. Comfort, Eric and Enid by Chrétien de Troyes (London and
New York, 1913) — translation of Erec, Cliges, Yvain, and
Lancelot, in Everyman’s Library — pp. 373—377 (Select
Bibliography of Works relating to Chrétien de Troyes) °.

® For a full bibliography of Chrétien's Yoatn, cp. Zenker, pp. XXIfff.

* This is the best bibliography of Chrétien that we have. It includes
works on text-criticism, grammar, style, etc, as the bibliography in the
present treatise does not.

Google

390 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Christian von Troyes: S&mtliche Werke, nach allen bekannten Hand-
schriften herausgegeben von Wendelin Foerster. The volumes in
the series are numbered: I, Cliges, II, Yvain, Ill, Erec, IV,
Lancelot and Guillaume d’ Angleterre. They were all published
at Halle and are enumerated under the headings of the respective
romances that now follow ’.

For publications on Chrétien's romances in their relation to

the Mabinogion, cp. Il, 62f., above.

W. L. Holland, Crestien von Troies, eine literaturgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung (Tibingen, 1854).

H. Emecke, Chrestien von Troyes als Persinlichkeit und als Dichter.
Strassburg diss., 1893. |

Otto Schulz, Die Darstellung psychologischer Vorginge in den Romanen
des Kristian von Troyes (Halle, 1903).

F. M. Warren, Some Features of Style in Early French Narrative
Poetry (1150—1170), MPh., III, 179 ff. (1905), 513ff. (1906),
IV, 655 ff. (1907).

Wendelin Foerster, Kristian von Troyes, Wirterbuch zu seinen s&mt-
lichen Werken (Halle, 1914).

E. Faral, Recherches sur les sources latines des contes et romans
courtois du moyen 4ge (Paris, 1913).

Andreas Capellanus, De Amore Libri Tres, edited by E. Trojel (Copen-
hagen, 1892).

W. A. Neilson, The Origins and the Sources of the Courts of Love:
[Harvard] Studies and Notes, VI (Boston, 1899).

E. Wechssler, Frauendienst und Vassalitat, Zs. f. fre. Spr. u. Litt.,
XXIV", 158 ff. (1902).

— Das Kulturproblem des Minnesangs: Studien zur Vorgeschichte der
Renaissance. Band I (Halle, 1909) °.

— reviewed by Karl Vossler in LB. March, April, 1911.

Myrrha Borodine, La femme et l'amour au XII® sidcle d’aprds les
poémes de Chrétien de Troyes (Paris, 1909).

M. Wilmotte, Rodlieb, notre premier roman courtois, Romania, XLIV,
378 ff. (1916—1917).

T. F. Crane, Italian Social Customs in the Sixteenth Century and their
influence on the literatures of Europe, ch. I (New Haven, 1920).

Philomena, conte raconté d’aprés Ovide par Chrétien de Troyes publié
... par C. De Boer (Paris, 1909).

F. E. Guyer, The Influence of Ovid on Crestien de Troyes, RR, XII,

97 ff., 216 ff. (1921).

7 Foerster’s editions of Chrétien’s Works have supplanted all previous
ones. He did not edit, however, the Chansons or the Perceval.
* Only one volume has appeared up to date (Feb. 1922).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 391

For the influence of the French romances of antiquity on
Chrétien, among otbers, cp. the Gittingen dissertations listed I,
111 and note 18, above.

Erec et Enide, edited by Immanuel Bekker, Zs. f. d. A., X, 378ff.
(1856), and by Wendelin Foerster in a large form (Halle, 1890)
and in a small form (second edition, tbid. 1909). — For. Eree
literature, cp. II, 63 ff. and notes, above.

G. Cohen, Zum Text des Erec, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXVI",
97f. (1911).

E. Philipot, Un episode d.Erec et Enide: la joie de la cour, Romania, —
XXV, 258 ff. (1896).

W. Meyer Liibke, Crestien von Troyes Erec und Enide, Zs. f. frz.
Spr. u. Litt., XLIV'*, 129 ff.

W. Kichler, Uber den sentimentalen Gehalt der Haupthandlung in
Crestien’s Erec und Ivain, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XL, 83ff. (1919).

Cliges, edited by W. Foerster in a large form (Halle, 1884) and in
a small form (third edition, ibtd., 1910).

J. L. Weston, The Three Days’ Tournament, a Study in Romance and
Folk-Lore: Grimm’s Library, No. 15 (London, 1902).

C. H. Carter, better discussion of the same mottf in his article,
Ipomedon, Haverford Essays, pp. 237 ff. (Haverford, 1909).

A. G. van Hamel, Cliges et Tristan, Romania, XX XIII, 465 ff. (1904).

— Bydrage tot de vergelijking van Cliges en Tristan, Taal en Letteren,
XIV, 193ff. (1904).

F. Settegast, Byzantinisch-Geschichtliches im Cliges and Yvain, Zs.
f. rom. Ph., XXXII, 400#f. (1908).

W. Foerster, Randglossen zum Athisroman, tbid., XXXVI, 727 ft.
(1912).

Le Conte de la Charrette (Lancelot), edited by W. J. A. Jonckbloet
as an Appendix to Part II (The Hague, 1849) of his edition of
the Dutch Roman van Lancelot, and by W. Foerster under the
title, Der Karrenritter in the volume, Der Karrenritter (Lan-
celot) und das Wilhelmsleben (Guillaume d’ Angleterre) von
Troyes (Halle, 1899). — For Lancelot literature, cp. Il, 397-8,
below.

Yvain, edited by W. L. Holland (first ed. 1862, third ed. 1886 and
reprinted Berlin, 1902) and by W. Foerster, Der Léwenritter
(Yvain) in large form (1887) and in small form (fifth edition
revised by A. Hilka, 1921). — For Yvain literature, ep. II,
389, above.

O. M. Johnston, The Episode of Yvain, the Lion, and the Serpent in
Chrétien de Troies, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXXII’, 157 ff.
(1907).

Google

392 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

O. M. Johnston, The Fountain at hag in Chrétien de Troies’ Yvain,
Transactions and Proceeding the American Philological
Association, vol. XX XIII, pp. "Lh XXIMf. (1902).

W. A. Nitze, A New Source of the Yoain, MPh., II], 267 (1905).

— The Fountain Defended, tbid., XII, 145 ft. (1909).

- Louise B. Morgan, The Source of the Fountain-Story in the Yeoain,
MPh., VI, 331 ff. (1909).

G. L. Hamilton, Storm-making Springs: Studies on the Sources of the
Yvain, RR, Ul, 315 ff. (1911), V, 213 ff. (1914).

H. Sparnaay, Ueber die Laudinefigur, Neophilologus, IIT, 122 ff. (1918).

— Laudine bei Crestien und bei Hartmann, #6id., IV, 810 ff. (1918).

Marianne Mirner, Le terminus a quo du Chevalier au Lion, Archi-
vium Romanicum, Ill, 95f. (1919).

Elise Richter, Die ktinstlerische Stoffgestaltang in Chrestiens Ivain,
Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXXIX, 385 ff. (1918).

Conte del Graal (Perceval), edited by Ch. Potvin in his Perceval le
Gallois ou le Conte du Graal, Part 2, vols. 1 and 2 (6 vols.
Mons, 1866—1871), and by G. Baist (Freiburg, 1909 and 1912
— an undated and unedited reproduction of the text of MS. 794,
f. francais, Bibl. Nat.). — For Perceval literature cp. II, 401
— 404, below.

Paul Steinbach, Uber den Einfluss des Crestien de Troyes auf die alt-
englische Literatur, Leipzig diss. 1885.

F. L. Critchlow, Arthur in Old French Poetry, not of the Breton Cycle,
MPh., VI, 477 ff. (1909).

W. M. Stevenson, Der Einfluss des Gautier d’Arras auf dio altfranzt-
sische Kunstepik, insbesondere auf den Abenteuerroman, Gidttingen
diss, 1910. ©

W. H. Schofield, Studies on. the Libeans Desconus, [Harvard] Studies
and Notes, IV (Boston, 1895).

Anna Hunt Billings, A Guide to the Middle English Metrical Romances:
Yale Studies in English, IX (New York, 1901).

John Edwin Wells, A Manual of the Writings in Middle English,
1050—1400. Ch. I (New Haven and London, 1916). — First
Supplement thereto (sbid., 1919).

W. F. Skene, Four Ancient Books of Wales (2 vols. Edinburgh, 1868).

Die Sagen von Merlin, mit alt-wdlschen, bretagnischen, schottischen,
italienischen und lateinischen Gedichten und Prophezeiungen
Merlins, der Prophetia Merlini des Gottfried von Monmouth und
der Vita Merlini, lateinischem Gedichte ans dem dreizehnten
Jahrhundert, herausgegeben und erl&utert von San Marte (Halle,
1858).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 393

G. Paris, Huth-Merlin, I, 1—146 (Paris, 1886) — prose version of
Robert's Merlin. — See his Introduction for a discussion of the
French romances on Merlin.

H. 0. Sommer, Le Roman de Merlin or the Early History of King
Arthur, pp. 1—92 (London, 1894) and Vulgate Version of the
Arthurian Romances, II, 1—88 (Washington, D. C. 1908) —
another text of the prose version of Robert's Merlin.

E. Brugger, Mitteilungen aus Handschriften der altfranzésischen Prosa-
romane Joseph und Merlin, nebst textkritischen Erérterungen,
Romanische Forschungen, XXVI, 1ff. (Erlangen, 1909).

H. L. D. Ward: Article on Vita Merlini in the Catalogue of Romances.
in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, I,
278 ff. (1883).

— Lailoken (or Merlin Silvester), Romania, XXII, 504ff. (1893).

P. Phillimore, Additional Notes to J. E. Lloyd’s Welsh Place-Names,
Y Cymmrodor, XI, 15ff. (1892).

William Edward Mead, Outlines of the History of the Legend of

" Merlin: Introduction to Part IV of the Middle English Prose
Merlin. E.E.T. 8. (London, 1899).

F. Lot, Protas sur Merlin, Annales de Bretagne, XV, 324tt, 505tt.
( ).

— Nouvelles études sur le cycle arthurien, Romania, XLV, 1ft..
(1918 —1919),

A. C. L. Brown, Barinthus, Revue Celtique, XXII, 389ff. (1901).

E. Bruggér, L’Enserrement Merlin: Studien zur Merlinsage, 23. f. frz..

r. u. Litt., XXIX', 56ft. (1906), XXX'* 169ff. (1906),
XXI*, 239 £7. (1907), XXXII", 145 tt (1908), XXXIV",
99 ff. (1909), XXXV"*, iff. (1909).

L. A. Paton, Merlin and Ganieda, MLN, XVIII, 168¢f. (1903).

— The Story of Grisandole, PULA, XXII, 234 ff. (1907).

— The Story of Vortigern’s Tower — an Analysis: Radcliffe College.
Monographs, No. 15 (1910).

G. H. Maynadier, Merlin and Ambrosius, Kittredge Anniversary Papers,
pp. 119ff. (Boston and London, 1913).

Francisque Michel, Tristan, recueil de ce qui reste des podmes relatifs
a@ ses aventures composés en francois, en anglo-normand et en
grec dans les XII. et XIII. sidcles (London, 3 vols., 1835—9).

Le roman de Tristan par Thomas, poéme du XII® sidcle publié par
Joseph Bédier (2 vols. Paris, 1908—1905). Société des Anciens
pe: Francais. Cp. review by W. Golther, LB, XXVIII, 61 ff.
(1907).

Google

394 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Le roman de Tristan par Béroul et un anonyme publié par Ernest
Muret (Paris, 1903) SATF.

Béroul: Le roman de Tristan, poéme du XII® siécle édité par E. Muret
(Paris, 1913). Les Classiques Francais au Moyen Age.

Les deux poémes de La Folie Tristan publiés par Joseph Bédier (Paris,
1907). SATF.

Eilhart von Oberge, herausgegeben von Franz Lichtenstein: QF, XIX
(Strassburg and London, 1877).

H. Degering: Nett Fonde aus dem zwilften Jahrhundert: ein bruch-
stiick der urfassung von Eilharts Tristrant, PBB, XLI, 513ff.
(1916).

Gottfried’s von Strassburg 7'ristan, edited by Reinhold Bechstein (third
edition, Leipzig, 1890), by W. Golther (ibid. 1889), by Karl
Marold (ibid. 1906 — text only) °.

Eugen paar Die nordische und die englische Version der Tristan-
Sage (2 Parts, Heilbronn, 1878— 1882).

Saga af Tristram ok Istnd samt Mottuls Saga (edited by G. Bryn-
julfson). Copenhagen, 1878.

E. Kélbing, Tristrams Saga ok Isondar (Heilbronn, 1878).

G. P. McNeill: Sir Tristrem (Edinburgh, 1886). Scottish Text Society.

J. Loth, L’“Ystoria Trystan” et la question des archetypes des romans
de la Table Ronde, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres:
Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’'Année 1913. Bulletin de Mars-
Avril.

— L’Ystoria Tristan et la question des archetypes, Revue Celtique,
XXXIV, 365¢f. (1913).

T. P. Cross, A Welsh Tristan Episode, [University of North Carolina]
Studies in Philology, XVII, 93tf. (1920). |

J. H. Lloyd, O. J. Bergin and G. ‘Schoepperle, The Reproach ‘of Diar-
maid, Revue Celtique, XXXIII, 41 ff. (1912).

— The Death of Diarmaid, sbid. 157¢t.

J. Bédier: Roman de Tristan et Iseut, traduit et restauré (Paris,
1900, and often since).

Tristan und Isolde von Gottfried von Strassburg, neu bearbeitet von
Wilhelm Hertz (fifth edition. Stuttgart and Berlin, 1907).

Fritz Vetter, La légende de Tristran d’aprés le poéme francais de
Thomas et les version: principales qui s’y rattachent (Marburg,
1882). Marburg diss.

* For older editions of Gottfried and literature of the subject, cp.
Golther’s Tristan und Isolde, p. 165, note 1. For a good bibliography of
Gottfried, op. Brano Dittrich’s Die Darstellung der Gestalten in Gottfrieds
Tristan, pp. V if., Greifswald diss. 1914.

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 395

W. Soederhjelm, Sur l'identité du Thomas auteur de Tristan et du
Thomas auteur de Horn, Romania, XV, 575ff. (1886).

Francesco Novati, Un nuovo ed un vecchio frammento del 7'ristran
di Tommaso, Studj di filologia romanza, II, 390ff. (1887).

L. Foulet, Thomas and Marie in their relation to the conteurs, MLN,
XXU, 205 ff. (1908).

S. Singer, Thomas Tristan und Benoit de Saint Maure, Zs. f. rom.
Ph., XXX, 729. (1909).

A. Hilka, Der Tristanroman des Thomas und die Disciplina Clericalis,

Ze. f. fre. Spr. u. Litt., XLV', 38t. (1917).

R. S. eer Tristram and the House of Anjou, MLR, XVII, 24ff.
(1922),

J. Knieschek, Der cecische Tristram und Eilhart von Oberge, Sitzungs-
berichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-histo-
rische Klasse, Vol. 101, pp. 319 ff. (1882).

— Der Cechische Tristram und seine deutschen. Vorlagen, Mit-
teilungen des Vereins fiir Geschichte der Deutschen in B&éhmen
XX, 226 ff. (1884).

— Der tschechische Tristram (German translation), Zs. f. d. A., XVI,
261 ff. (1884). |

J. Bédier, La mort de Tristan et Iseut, d’aprds le m. fr. 108 de la
Bibliothéque nationale comparé au podme allemand d’Eilhart
d'Oberg. Romania, XV, 481 ff. (1886).

E. Muret, Eilhart d’Oberg et sa source francaise, Romania, XVI,
288 tt. (1887).

G. Huet, Sur un episode du Tristan d'Eilhart d'Oberge, Romania,
XXXVI, 50ff. (1907).

E. Gierach, Zur Sprache von Eilharts Tristrant, Prager Deutsche
Studien, IV (1908).

A. Bossert, Tristan et Iseult, poéme de Gotfrit de Strasbourg comparé

& d’antres poémes sur le meme sujet. Paris thesis (Paris, 1865).

— La légende chevaleresque de Tristan et Iseult: essai de littérature
comparée (Paris, 1902).

Richard Heinzel, Gottfrieds von Strassburg Tristan und seine Quelle,
Zs. f. d. A., XIV, 272. (1869).

F. Piquet, L’originalité de Gottfried de Strasbourg dans son poéme
de Tristan et Isolde: étude de littérature comparée: Travaux et
Mémoires de l'Université de Lille. Nouvelle Série, 1, Droit-
Lettres — Fascicule 5 (Lille, 1905).

W. Lutoslawaki, Les Folies de Tristan, Romania, XV, 511 ff. (1886).

H. Morf: Le Folie Tristan du ms. de ‘Berne, ibid., pp. 558 ff.

E. Hoepfiner, Das Verhiltniss der Berner Folie Tristan z Berols
Tristandichtung, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XX XIX, 62ff. (1917).

Google

396 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Ek. Hoepffner, Die Berner und die Oxforder Folie, tbid., XXXIX,
551 ff. (1918), 672ff. (1919). .

— Die Folie Tristan und die Odyasee, ibid., XL, 239. (1919).

G. Paris, Note sur les romans relatifs & Tristan, Romania, XV,

597f. (1886).

Tristan et Iseut, Revie de Paris, April 15, 1894.

Cliges, Journal des Savants, June, 1902.

Golther, Die Sage von Tristan und Isolde (Munich, 1887).

Zur Tristansage, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XII, 348 ff. (1888).

Die Jungfrau mit den goldenen Haaren: Studien zur Literatur-

geschichte, M. Bernays gewidmet (Leipzig, 1893).

—- Bemerkungen zur Sage und Dichtung von Tristan und Isolde, Zs.
f. frz. Spr. u. Titt., XX’, 1ft. (1900).

— Tristan und Isolde in den Dichtungen des Mittelalters und der
Neuzeit (Leipzig, 1907).

— review by E. Muret, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXXVII*, 167 ff.
(1911).

W. Rodttiger, Der heutige Stand der Tristanforschung. Programm des.
Wilhelm-Gymnasiums zu Hamburg (Hamburg, 1897).

Max Deutschbein, Studien zur Sagengeschichte Englands. I, Wikinger-
sagen (Cdthen, 19086).

Jakob Kelemina, Untersuchungen zur ‘ristansage (Leipzig, 1910).

R. Zenker, Die Tristansage und das persische Epos von Wis und
Ramin, Romanische Forschungen, X XIX, 321 ff. (Erlangen, 1911).

J. Loth, Contributions 4 I’étude des romans de la Table Ronde (Paris,
1912), made up of articles (most of them on the 7'ristan legend)
which originally appeared in the Revue Celtique, XXX, 270ff.
(1909), XXXII, 296ff., 407. 421 tf. (1911), XXXII 2498,
258 ff., 408 ff. (1912), — For ‘a valuable review of Loth’s book,
cp. A. Smirnov, Romania, XLIII, 121 ff. (1914). — After the
publication of his volume, Loth continued the Contributions in
the Revue Celtique, XXXIV, 365ff. (1913), XXXVII, 317ff.
(1917—9).

Gertrude Schoepperle: Tristan and Isolt, a Study of the Sources of
the Romance. New York University, Ottendorfer Memorial Series
of Germanic Monographs, No. 4 (2 vols. Frankfurt a. M. and
London, 1913).

— reviews by F. Lot, Romania, XLIIT, 126 ff. (1914), W. Golther,
Deutsche Literaturzeitung,. XXXV, 670 ff. (1914), W. A. Nitze,
JEGcPh., XIII, 444ff. (1914), and J. D. Bruce, MLN, XXIx,
213 ff. (1914).

F, M. Warren, Tristan on the Continent before 1066, MLN, XXIV,
871. (1909).

l 1a]

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 397

Gertrude Schoepperle, The love-potion in Tristan and Isolt, Romania,
XXXIX, 277 ff. (1910).

— The Island Combat in TJiistan, Radcliffe College Monographs,
no. 15, pp. 27 ff. (1910).

— Isolde Weisshand am Sterbebette Tristans, 23. f. deutsche Philo-
logie, XLII. 453 ff. (1911).

E. Bragger, Zum Tristan-Roman, Archiv fiir das Studwim der neueren
Sprachen, CXXIX., 134ff., 375ff. (1912), CXXX, 117 ff.
(1913).

Vial Hover Isoldes Gottesurteil in seiner erotischen Bedeutung (Berlin,
1914).

For the bibliography of allusions to Tristan and Iseult in
mediaeval literature and of the use of their story in the deco-
rative arts, cp. I, 163, note 13, above.

L. Sudre, Les allusions 4 la légende de Tristan dans la littérature du
moyen age, Romania, XV, 534 ff. (1886).

' C. Appel: Tristan bei Cercamon? Zs. f. rom. Ph., XLI, 219ft. (1921).

J. L. Deister, Bernart de Ventadour's Reference to the Tristan Story,
MPh., XIX, 278ff. (1922).

W. Foerster, Der Karrenritter (Lancelot) und das Wilhelmsleben
(Guillaume d’Angleterre) von Christian von Troyes (Halle, 1899).

— sil by W. Golther, 4s. f. fre. Spr. u. Litt, XXIL* (ft.
(1900).

— Introduction to Foerster’s Chrétien Worterbuch (Halle, 1914).

Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's Lanzelet, edited by K. A. Hahn (Frankfurt
a. M. 1845).

H. O. Sommer, The Prose Lancelot: Vols. If (1910), IV (1911),
V (1912), of The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances
(Washington, D. C.). |

W. A. Nitze, San et matere dans les oeuvres de Chrétien de Troyes,
Romana, XLIV, 14 ff. (1915).

Paul Martens, Zur Lanzelotsage, Boehmer’s Romanische Studien,
567 ff. (1880).

G. Paris, Etudes sur les romans de la Table Ronde: Lancelot du Lac,
Romania, X, 465 ff. (1881), XII, 459ff. (1883).

J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend (Oxford, 1891).

J. L. Weston, The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac (London, 1901).

— review by W. W. Greg, Folk-Lore, XII, 486 tf. (1901).

For articles concerning Melwas, Cp. 1, 197, note 11, above.

A. C. L. Brown, The Grail and the English Sir Perceval, MPh. XVI,
559 ff. (1919), XVII, 361 ff. (1919) — discusses the Lanzelet,
also.

Google

398 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

R. Thurneysen, Zu Wilhelm von Malmesbury, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XX,
316 ff. (1896).

F. Lot, Glastonbury et Avalon, Romania, XXVII, 529ff. (1898).

— Mélanges d'Histoire Bretonne (Paris, 1907).

W. W. Newell, William of Malmesbury on the Antiquity of Glaston-
bury, PMLA, XVII, 459 ff. (1908).

E. Brugger, Beitrige zur Erkldrung der arthurischen Geographie: II,
Gorre, Zs. f. frz. Spr. tu. Litt., X XVII", 1ff. (1905).

Laura Hibbard, The Sword Bridge of Chrétien de Troyes and its
Celtic Original, RR, IV, 166ff. (1913).

J.D. Bruce, Human Automata in Classical Tradition and Mediaeval
Romance, MPh., X, 511 ff. (19193).

H. R. Patch, Some Elements in Mediaeval Descriptions of the Other-
world, PMLA, X XXIII, 601 ff. (1918).

M. B. Ogle: The Perilous Bridge and Human Automata, MLN, XXXV,
129 ff. (1920).

Part II (The Holy Grail)

Francisque Michel, Le Roman du Saint Graal (Bordeaux, 1841) —
contains Robert de Boron's Joseph and unfinished Merlin. Michel's
edition was reprinted by the Comte de Douhet in Abbé Migne’s
Dictionnaire des légendes du christianisme, cols. 454 ff. (Paris,
1855) and by F. J. Furnivall as an appendix to Vol. I of his
Seynt Graal or Sank Ryal (2 vols. London, 1861 —8), printed
for the Roxburghe Club.

Ch. Potvin, Perceval le Gallois ou le Conte du Graal (6 vols., Mons,
1866 — 1871).

G. Baist, Crestiens von Troyes Contes del Graal (Percevaus li galois):
Abdruck der Handschrift Paris, francais, 794, mit Anmerkungen
und Glossar (Freiburg i. B.). Undated, but issued first in 1909
and then in 1912. On the numerous errors of the first issue
see R. Weeks’s review, RR. II, 101 ff. (1911).

E. Hucher, Le Petit Saint Graal en prose on Joseph D'Arimathie in
Le Saint Graal, J, 209ff., 277ff. (3 vols. Le Mans and Pavis,
1875—8) — from two different MSS.

Georg Weidner, Der Prosaroman von Joseph von Aramathia (Oppeln,
1881) — another edition of the prose version of Robert de Boron’s
Joseph.

For Modern French prose paraphrases of Robert’ s Joseph., cp. P. Paris,
RTR, I, 123 ff. (Paris, 1868) and E. Hucher, op. cit., I, 15641.
(Le Mans and Paris, 1875).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 399

For bibliography of the prose Grail-romances — Estoire del Saint
Graal, Queste del Saint Graal, Didot-Perceval, Perlesvaus, etc.,
— ep. pp. 406ff., below °°.

J. B. B. Roquefort, Dictionnaire de la langue romane (Paris, 1808)
— article, Graal.

Le Roux de Lincy, Essai sur l’abbaye de Fécamp (Rouen, 1840).

F. Zarncke, Zur Geschichte der Gralsage, PBB. III, 327 ff. (1876).

Adolph Birch-Hirschfeld, Die Sage vom Gral, ihre Entwicklung und
dichterische Ausbildang in Frankreich und Deutschland im 12.
und 18. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1877).

E. Martin, Zur Gralsage (Strassburg, 1880). QF, XLVII.

G. Paris, Perceval et la légende du Saint Gral: Société Historique et
Cercle Saint-Simon, Bulletin, no. 2 (Paris, 1883).

R. Heinzel, Uber die franzésischen Gralromane, Denkschriften of the
Vienna Academy, Philos.-Hist. Klasse, Vol. XL (Vienna, 1891).

G. Baist, Arthur und der Gral, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XIX, 826 ft. (1895),
XX, 320f. (1896).

— Zu Robert de Boron, ibid., XXXII, 231 (1908).

— Parzival und der Gral (Freiburg i. B., 1909): Prorektoratsrede.

— review of the preceding by A. Nutt, The Academy, May 7, 1910.

R. Thurneysen, Zu William von Malmesbury, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XX,
316 ff. (1896).

Edward Wechssler, Die Sage vom heiligen Gral in ihrer Entwicklung
bis auf Richard Wagner's Parsifal (Halle, (1898). Cp. J. F..
D. Bléte’s review Zs. f. d. A., Anzeiger, XLII, 350ff.

— Untersuchungen zu den Graalromanen, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIII,
135 ff. (1899).

W. W. Newell, The Legend of the Holy Grail and the Perceval of
Crestien of Troyes (Cambridge, Mass., 1902) — reprint of articles,
originally published in the Journal of American Folk-Lore, X,
117 ff. 299 ff. (1897).

F. Lot, Glastonbury et Avalon, Romania, XXVII, 529 ff. (1898).

— Mélanges d'Histoire Bretonne, pp. 277 ff. (Paris, 1907).

W. W. Newell, William of Malmesbury on the Antiquity of Glaston-
bury, PMLA, XVIII, 459¢f. (1908).

Willy Staerck, Uber den Ursprung der Grallegende (Ttibingen, 1903).

— review by Konrad Burdach, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, XXIV,
3050 ff. (Dec. 12, 1903).

Arthur Edward Waite, The Hidden Church of the Holy Grail (London,
1909) — a fantastic book.

10 I purposely omit from the above list, as destitute of value, various
writings on the Grail, such as those of Sebastian Evans, J. 8. Tunison,
G. Wardle, and others.

Google

400 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Rose J. Peebles, The Legend of Longinus: Bryn Mawr College Mono-
graph Series, [IX (1911).

— review by A. C. L. Brown, MLN, XXVIII, 28ff. (1913).

G. B. Woods, A Reclassification of the Perceval Romances, PMLA,
XXVIT, 524 ff. (1912).

W. Foerster, Chrétien Worterbuch (Halle, 1914).

Lizette Andrews Fisher, The Mystic Vision in the Grail Legend and
in the Divine Comedy: Columbia Studies in English and Compa-
rative Literature (New York, 1917).

— bible by W. A. Nitze and 'E. H. Wilkins, MPh., XVI, 438¢f
(1918).

Alfred Nutt, The Aryan Expulsion — and Return-Formula, Folk-Lore
Record, IV, 1ff. (1881).

— Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail, with especial reference
to the hypothesis of its Celtic Origin (London, 1888).

— review of the preceding by G. Paris, Romania, XVID, 588 ff.
(1889), and by H. Zimmer, Géttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen,
June 10, 1890.

—— Les derniers: travaux allemands sur la légende du Saint Graal,

Revue Celtique, XII, 181 ff. (1891).

— The Legends of the Holy Grail: Popular Studies in Mythology,
Romance and Folklore, no. 14 (London, 1902).

— Recent Grail Literature, The Academy, May 7, 1910.

A. C. L. Brown, Balin and the Dolorous Stroke, MPh., VIT, 208ff. (1909).

— The Bleeding Lance, PMLA, XXV, 1ff. (1910).

— Notes on Celtic Cauldrons of Plenty and the Land-Beneath-the-
Waves, Kittredge Anniversary Papers, 235ff. (Boston and
London, 1913).

— From Cauldron of Plenty to Grail, MPh., XIV, 385ff. (1916).

Kuno Meyer, An Old Irish Parallel to the Motive of the Bleeding
Lance, Eriu, VI, 156f. (1912).

R. B. Pace, Death of the Red Knight in the Story of Perceval, MLN,
XXXI, 53 ff. (1916). |

— Sir Perceval and the Boyish Exploits of Finn, PMLA, XXXII,
598 ft. (1917).

Esther C. Dunn, The Drawbridge of the Grail Castle, MLN, X XXIII,
899 ff. (1918).

J. L. Weston, Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle (London, 1908):
oe Romances unrepresented in Malory’s “Morte D'Arthur’,
No. 9.

— Wauchier de Denain and Bleheris (Bledhericus), Romania, XXXIV,
100 ff. (1905).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 401

J. L. Weston, The Legend of Sir Perceval (2 vols. London, 1906—9):
Grimm Library, No. 6.

— reviews of the preceding: of Vol. I, by W. Golther, Zs. f. ver-
gleich. Literaturgeschichte, XVII, 135 ff., of Vol. Il, by F. Lot,
Bibliotheque d’ Ecole des Chartes, LXX, 666 ff. (1909), and of
both by E. Brugger, 23. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXI* 122 ff.
(1907), XXXVI* 383i ff. (1910), and by J. F. D. Blite, Zs. f.
d, A., Anzeiger, XXXII, 24-ff. (1908), XXXIV, 242¢f. (1910).

— Sir Gawain and the Lady of Lys (London, 1907): same series as
first title, No. 7.

— The Grail and the Rites of Adonis, Folk-Eore, X VIII, 283 ff. (1907).

— The Quest of the Holy Grail (London, 1918).

— From Ritual to Romance (Cambridge, 1920).

Edward Owen, A note on the identification of Bleheris, Revue Celtique,
XXXII, 5 ff. (1911).

W. J. , Grattyd, Bledhericus, Bleddri, Breri, ibid., XX XIII, 180 ff.
( ).

W. A. Nitze, Glastonbury and the Holy Grail, MPh., I, 247 ff. (1903).

— oe ras King in the Grail Romances, PMLA, XXIV, 366 ff.
(1909).

— The Castle of the Grail — an Irish Analogue, Studies in Honor
of A. Marshall Elliott, I, 19ff. (2 vols. Baltimore, undated).

— The Sister's Son and the Conte del Graal, MPh., IX, 291 ff. (1912).

— Concerning the Word Graal, Greal, MPh., XIII, 681 ff. (1916).

— The Glastonbury Passages in the Perlesvaus, |Univ. of North
Carolina] Studies in Philology, XV, 7 ff. (1918).

Hugo Waitz, Die Fortsetzungen von Chrestiens Perceval la Gallois
nach den Pariser Handschriften (Strassburg, 1890).

For Miss Weston on Wauchier (and Pseudo-Wauchier) see list of her
Grail writings, above.

Paul Meyer, Wauchier de Denain, Histoire littéraire de la France,
XXXII, 258 ff. (1906).

A. epee Uber einen bisher unbekannten Percheval li Gallois (Ziirich,

5).

F. Kraus, Uber Girbert de Montreuil und seine Werke (Erlangen,
1897). Wiirzburg diss.

M. Wilmette, Gerbert de Montreuil et les écrits qui lui sont attribués,
Académie Royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres,
etc. pp. 166 ff. (1900).

J. Bédier and J. L. Weston, Tristan Menestrel: extrait de la con-
tinuation de Perceval par Gerbert, Romania, XXXV, 497 ff.
(1906).

Rejperia, Ergdnsungsrethe : 9. 26

Google

402 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

James Orchard Halliwell, The Thornton Romances: the Early English
Metrical Romances of Perceval, Isumbras, Eglamour, and Degrevant
(London, 1844). Camden Society.

J. Campion and F. Holthausen, Sir Perceval of Gales (Heidelberg and
New York, 1913): Alt- und Mittelenglische Texte, herausgegebeu
von L. Morsbach und F. Holthausen Blanjd 5.

W. Golther, Chrestiens conte del graal in seinem Verhi&ltnis zum
walschen Peredur und zum englischen Perceval, Sitzungsberichte
of the Bavarian (Munich). Academy, Philos.-hist. Klasse, II,
174 ff. (1890).

Paul Steinbach, Uber den Einfluss des Crestien de Troies auf die alt-
englische Literatnr. Leipzig diss. 1885.

Carsten Strucks, Der junge Parzival in Wolframs von Eschenbach
“Parzival’’, Crestien’s von Troyes “conte del gral”, im englischen
“Syr Percyvelle” und italienischen “Carduino” (Borna- Leipzig,
1910). Mtinster diss.

R. H. Griffith, Sir Perceval of Galles (Chicago, 1911). Chicago thesis.

— reviews of the preceding by J. D. Bruce, RR, IV, 125ff. (1913),
and by E. Brugger, Zs. f. fre. Spr. u. Litt, XLIV’, 137ff.
(1917). —

A. C. L. Brown, The Grail and the English Sir Perceval, MPh., XVI,
553 ft. (1919), XVII, 361 ff. (1919), XVIII, 661 ff. (1921).

Wolfram’s Parzival is, of cowrse. discussed in all histories of German
literature (Scherer’s, etc.) — moreover, in all the leading treatises
on the Grail which I have already listed (Birch-Hirschfeld's, Nutt's,
Wechsslers’, Miss Weston’s, etc.). Cp. too, the Perceval studies
(listed above) by Miss Weston, Griffith and A. C. L. Brown. —
There are special Wolfram bibliographies by G. Bitticher, Die
Wolfram-Literatur seit Lachmann, mit kritischen Anmerkungen
(Berlin, 1880), and by F. Panzer, Bibliographie zu W. von E.
(Munich, 1896). For a good select bibliography on the subject,
cp. E. Wechssler, Die Sage vom heiligen Gral, pp. 193ff. (Halle,
1898).

Wolfram’s von Eschenbach Parzival und Titurel, herausgegeben von
Karl Bartsch (3 parts, Leipzig, 1875-7): Franz Prfeiffer's
Deutsche Classiker des Mittelalters, IX, X, XI.

— the same, herausgegeben und erkliirt von Ernst Martin (2 parts,

Halle, 1900— 1903) '': Germanistische Handbibliothek, begriindet

von Julins Zacher, [X, 1. 2.

it An anastatic reproduction of Part I (text) was, also, issued at Halle

in 1920. For older editions of Wolfram’s works — especially, K. Lachmann’s
(first published in 1833) — cp. Martin, I, pp. Iff.

—_

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 403

Wolfram’s von Eschenbach the same, herausgegeben von A. Leitzmann
(Halle, 1902, et seq.).

A. von Siegenfeld, Das Landeswappen Steiermarks (Graz, 1901).

— review of the same by A. Schinbach, Zs. f. d. A, Anzeiger,
XXVIII, 149ff. (1903).

Johann Baptist Kurz, Heimat und Geschlecht Wolframs von Eschenbach
(Ansbach, 1916).

R. Liick, Ueber die Abfassungszeit des Parzival. Halle diss. .1878.

John Orr, Les oeuvres de Guiot de Provins (Manchester, 1915):
Publications de l'Université de Manchester: Série francaise, No. I.

G. A. Heinrich, Le Parcival de Wolfram d’Eschenbach et la légende
du Saint-Graal (Paris, 1855).

San Marte (A. Schulz), Ueber die Eigennamen im Parzival des Wolfram
von Eschenbach, Germania, II, 385 ff. (1857). |

—~ late von Eschenbach und Guiot von Provins, ibid., III, 445ff.
(1858).

— Parzivalstudien I—III (Halle, 1861— 62).

— Sein oder Nichtsein des Guiot von Provence, Zs. f. deutsche Ph.,
XV, 385ff. (1883).

— Zor Gral- und Arthursage, ibid., XVI, 129ff. (1884).

K. Bartsch, Die Eigennamen in Wolframs Parzival und Titurel,
Germanistische Studien, Il, 114ff. (Vienna, 1875).

Alfred Rochat, Wolfram von Eschenbach und Chretiens de Troyes,
Germania, ITI, 81 ff. (1858).

T. Urbach, Uber den Stand der Frage nach den Quellen des Parzival.
Program (Zwickau, 1872).

Kar] Simrock, Parcival und Titurel: Rittergedichte von W. von Eschen-
bach, tibersetzt und erldatert (fifth ed., Stuttgart, 1876).

F. Zarncke, Zur Geschichte der Gralsage, PBB, III, 304ff. (1876).

— Der Graltempel, a of the Royal Saxon Academy of
Sciences, V, 477

G. Batticher, Zor Frage nach der Quelle des Parzival, Zs. f. deutsche
Ph., XII, 3865 ff. (1882).

Otto Kiipp, Die unmittelbaren Quellen des Parzival von Wolfram von
Eschenbach, ibid., XVII, iff. (1885).

G. Bdtticher, Das Hohelied vom Rittertum, eine Beleuchtung des
Parzival nach Wolframs eigenen Andeutungen (Berlin, 1886).

W. Hertz, Sage vom Parzival und dem Gral (Breslau, 1892).

Paul Hagen, Parzivalstudien, Germania, XXXVI. 74ff. (1892).

— Der Gral (Strassburg, 1900), QF, LXXXV.

— Untersuchungen tiber Kiot, Zs. f. d. A., XLV, 187¢f. (1901).

— Wolfram und Kiot, Zs. f. deutsche Ph., XX XVIII, 198ff. (1906).

26*

Google

404 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Cp. E. Brugger’s review of this article, Archw f. d. St. der
n. Spr. CXVIII, 230ff. (1907).

R. Heinzel, Uber Wolframs von Eschenbach Parzival, Sitzungsberichte
of the Vienna Academy, 1894. Philos.-hist. Classe, Band 130.

J. L. Weston, Parzival, a Knightly Epic (London, 1894).

— The Legends of the Wagner Drama (idid., 1896).

Ludwig Grimm, Wolfram von Eschenbach und die Zeitgenossen, I. Teil.
Zur Entstehung des Parzival. Leipzig diss. 1897.

J. Lichtenstein, Zur Parzivalfrage, PBB, XXII, iff. (1897).

W. Hertz, Parzival von Wolfram von Eschenbach, neu _ bearbeitet
(second ed. Stuttgart, 1898).

E. Wechssler, Zur Beantwortung der Frage nach den Quellen von
Wolframs Parzival, Festgabe fiir Eduard Sievers, pp. 237 ff.
(Halle, 1896).

— Die Sage vom heiligen Gral (sbid., 1898).

Albert Nolte, Der Eingang des Parzival, Marburg diss., 1899.

— Die Composition der Trevrezent-Scenen, Zs. f. d. A., XLIV,
241 ff. (1900).

S. Singer, Uber die Quelle von Wolframs Parzival, 7s. f. d. A.,
XLIV, 321 ff. (1900).

— Wolframs Stil und der Stoff des Parzival, Sitzungsberichte of the
Vienna Academy of Sciences, 1918, — Philos.-histor. Classe,
Band 180, Abhandlung 4.

A. Leitzmann, Untersuchungen fiber Wolframs: Titurel, PBB, X XVI,
93 ff. (1901).

J. L. Weston, The Romance of Morien (London and New York, 1901)"*.

A. B. roe ‘The Ninth Book of Wolframs Parzival, MPh., I, 275ff.
(1903).

J. F. D. Blite, Zam lapsit exilis, Zs. f. d. A.. XLVII, 101 ff. (1908).

kK. Brugger, Alain de Gomeret, ein Beitrag zur arthurischen Namen-
forschung: Sonderabdruck aus ... Festgabe fiir Heinrich Morf
(Halle, 1905).

F. Wilhelm, Ueber fabulistische Quellenangaben, PBB, XX XIII, 286 ff.
(1908).

W. Golther, Parzival und der Gral in deutscher Sage des Mittelalters
und der Nenzeit: Universitatsvortrag, Rostock, 1910: Zur deutschen
Sage und Dichtung, pp. 154ff. (Leipzig, 1911).

P. §. Barto, The Schwanritter-Sceaf Myth in Perceval le Gallois ou
le Conte du Graal, JEGcPh., XIX, 190ff. (1920).

For bibliography of the Swan-Knight (Lohengrin) story, cp. G. Paris,
Manuel®, p. 289, J. F. D. Bléte, Das Aufkommen des clevischen

ae —— —

1* For further discussions of Morien cp. I, 331, note 38; II, 304, above.

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 405

Schwanritters, Zs. f. d. A., XLII, 1ff. (1898), W. Golther,
Romanische Forschungen, Il; G. Poisson, L’origine celtique de la
légende de Lohengrin, Revue Celtique, XXXIV, 182#f. (1913).

J. Loth, Peredur in Les Mabinogion', II*, 471. (1913).

J. G. Evans, The White Book Mabinogion (Pwllheli, 1907).

W. Golther, Chrestiens conte del graal in seinem Verhidltnis zum
-walschen Peredur und zum englischen Sir Perceval: Sitzungs-
berichte of the Munich Academy, 1890, philos.-philolog. und
historische Classe, I, 174ff.

J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend (Oxford, 1891).

Mary R. Williams, Essai sw la composition du roman gallois de Peredur,
Paris thesis, 1909.

— review of the preceding by R. aia ai Zs. f. celt. Ph., VIII,
185ff. (1912),

M. Goldschmidt, Sone de Nausay: Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins
in Stuttgart, CCX VI (Tiibingen, 1899).

8. Singer, Uber die Quelle von Wolframs Parzival, Zs. f. d. A.,
XLIV, 321 ff. (1900).

K. Nyrop, Sone de Nansai et la Norvége, Romania, XXXV, 556tt.

~ (1906).

J. L. Weston, Notes on the Grail Romances, Romania, XLII, 403¢tt.

(1914),

G. H. F. Scholl: Diu Créne: Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in
Stuttgart, XX VII (Stuttgart, 1852).

A. N. Wesselofsky, Der Stein Alatyr in den Localsagen Pal&stinas
und der Legende vom Gral, Archiv ftir slavische Philologie,
VI, 33ff. (1882).

— Zur Frage iiber die Heimath der Legende vom heiligen Gral, ibid.,
XXII, 321 ff. (1901).

M. Gaster, The Legend of the Holy Grail, Folk-Lore, Il, 50ff.,
198ff. (1891), including note appended by A. Nutt to Gaster's
second article.

Paul Hagen, Der Gral (Strassburg, 1900), QF No. 85.

Willy Staerk, Uber den Ursprung der Gral-Legende (Tiibingen and
Leipzig, 1903).

Theodor Sterzenbach, Ursprung und Entwickelung der Sage vom heiligen
Gral. Minster diss. 1908.

Ludwig Emil Iselin, Der morgenlindische Ursprung der Grallegende
(Halle, 1909).

Google

406 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Leopold von Schroeder, Die Wurzeln der Sage vom heiligen Gral.
Sttzungsberichte of the Vienna Academy, 1910, Philos.-histor.
Classe, Band 166, 2. Abhandlang. — For reviews of this work,
ep. I, 357f£., notes 4, 5, above.

Victor Junk, Gralsage und Graldichtung des Mittelalters, ibid., Band
168, Abhandlung 4. (1911).

Julius Pokorny, Der Ursprung der Arthursage: Mitteilungen der
anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, vol. 39 (1909).

Fra Gaetano da Teresa, Il Catino di Smeraldo Orientale, Gemma
consagrata da N. S. Gesu Cristo nell’ Ultima Cena degli Azimi,
etc. (Genoa, 1726)**.

Part III (The Prose Romances)

Georg Phillips, Walter Map, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Kénig Heinrichs
von England und des Lebens an seinem Hofe: Sitzungsberichte
of the Vienna Academy of Sciences. Philos.-histor. Klasse, X,
819ff. (1858).

H. L. D. Ward, article on Map, Catalogue of the Romances in the
Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, I, 734ff.
(1883).

C. L. Kingsford, article on Map, Dictionary of National Biography.

J. Bardoux, De Walterio Mappio (Paris, 1900).

James Hinton, Walter Map'’s De Nugis Curialium, its plan and
composition, PMLA, XXXII, 81ff. (1917).

Henry Bradley, Notes on Walter Map’ s De N ugis Curialium, English
Historical Review, XXXII, 393ff. (1917).

H. Oskar Sommer, The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances
(7 vols. plus Index, The Carnegie Institution, Washington, D. C.).
Vol. I, L'Estoire del Saint Graal ** (1909); Vol. Il, L’Estoire .
Merlin (1908) **; Vols. HI (1910), IV (1911), V (1912),
Livre de Lancelot del Lac; VI, Les Aventures ou La Queste a
Saint Graal, La Mort le Roi ‘Artus ( 1913); VII, Supplement:
Le Livre d'Artus (£913); Index of Names and Places to Volumes
I—VII (1916).

Der altfranzésische Prosaroman von Lancelot de] Lac: Versuch einer
kritischen Ausgabe nach allen bekanaten Handschriften, by pupils

13 For the various traditions concerning this vessel, cp. I, 874ff, above.

tt This romance has often been called — without manuscript author-
ity — the Grand Saint Graal.

18 Both Vols. I and II really appeared in 1910.

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Titerature 407

of Professor Eduard Wechssler, in the Marburger Beitrdge zur .
Romanischen Philologie. The following issues have appeared
up to date (Feb. 1922): Heft Il (1911): Erste Branche: La
Reine as Granz Dolors, edited by G. Brauner; Heft VI (1912):
Zweite Branche: Les Enfances Lancelot (1. Teil), by H. Becker;
Heft VIII (1912): Zweite Branche: Les Enfances Lancelot
(2. Teil), and dritte Branche: La Doloreuse Garde (1. Teil), by
H. Babinger; Hett XIX (1916): Vierte Branche: Galehout, by
A. Zimmermann *°

F. J. Furnivall, Seynt Graal or the Sank Ryal (2 vols. Printed for
the Roxburghe Club, London, 1861—3). — The French text
here given was reprinted in Vols. 20, 24, 28, 30 of the Publi-
cations (Extra Series) of the Early English Text Society.

— La Queste del St. Graal (for the same club, tbid., 1864).

Eugéne Hucher, Le Saint Graal ou le Joseph d’Arimathie: Premiére
Branche des Romans de la Table Ronde (3 vols. Le Mans and
Paris, 1875—8). In Vol. I are printed Robert de Boron’s
Joseph (prose version) and the Didot-Perceval, in Vols. Il and
Ill, the Estoire del Saint Graal (Grand St, Graal) of the
Vulgate cycle. |

H. Oskar Sommer, Le Roman de Merlin or the Early History of Arthur
(London, 1894).

J. D. Bruce, Mort Artu, an Old French Prose Romance of the XII[th
century, being the Last Division of Lancelot du Lac (Halle, 1910).

Paulin Paris, Les Romans de’ la Table Ronde (6 vols., Paris,
1868—77 ).

H. 0. Sommer, Le Morte Darthur by Syr Thomas Malory (3 vols.,
London, 1889—91).

J. D. Bruce, The Middle English Stanzaic Le Morte Arthur (Harleian
MS. 2252). E. E. T.S., Extra Series, No. 88 (1903).

— The Middle English Metrical Romance Le Morte Arthur (Harleian
MS. 2252): Its Sources and its Relation to Sir Thomas Malory’s
Morte Darthur, Anglia, XX XIII, 67 ff. (1900).

Walter De Gray Birch, Li Chantari di Lancelotto (London, 1874).

Paulin Paris, Les manuscrits francois de la Bibliothéque du Roi (7 vols.,
Paris, 1836 —48).

G. Gréber, Grundriss der Romanischen Philologie, Band II, Abt. I,
pp. 996ff. (1902).

P. Paris, Le Saint Graal, [Estoire], Romania, I, 457 ff. (1871).

16 For a criticism of the first issue of this edition in which the plan
of the whole is set forth, cp. E. Brugger, Zs. f. fre. Spr. u. Litt., XL*, 37 ff.
(1912).

Google

408 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

A. Birch-Hirschfeld, Die Sage vom Gral (Leipzig, 1877).

A. Nutt, Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail (London, 1888).

J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend (Oxford, 1891).

R. Heinzel, Uber die franzdsischen Gralromane (Vienna, 1891): Denk-
schriften of the Vienna Academy of Sciences. Philos.-hist.
Classe. Band XL.

E. Wechssler, Die Sage vom heiligen Gral (Halle, 1898).

— Untersuchungen zu den Graalromanen, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIII,
135 ff. (1899).

J. L. Weston, The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac (London, 1901):
Grimm Library, No. 12.

— The Legend of Sir Perceval (2 vols. ‘ibid., 1906—9): Grimm

| Library,.Nos. 17 and 19.

E. Brugger, L’Enserrement Merlin, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXIX',
56 ff. (1906), XXX*, 169. (1906), XXXII", 289ff. (1907),
XXXII*, 145ff. (1908), XXXIV’ 99ff. (1909) XXXV‘
1 ff. (1909).

J. D. Bruce, Arthuriana, RR, III, 173 ff. (1912).

— The Development of the Mort Arthur Theme in Mediaeval Romance,
ibid. IV, 403¢f. (1913).

— Pelles, Pellinor, and Pellean in the Old’ French Arthurian Ro-
mances, MPh., XVI, 113ff., 337 ff. (1918).

— Galahad, Nascien, and Some Other Names in the Grail Romances,
MLN, XXXIIl, 129#f. (1918).

— Mordrain, Corbenic, and the Vulgate Grail Romances, ibid., XX XIV,
385 ff. (1919).

— The Composition of the Old French Prose Lancelot. RR, IX,
241 ff. 853 ff. (1918), X, 48H. 97 ff. (1919).

F. Lot, Etude sur le Lancelot en pr ose (Paris, 1918): Bibliothdque
de I'Ecole des Hantes Etudes. Fascicule 226. — It includes
two essays (appendices) at the end by Mme. Lot-Borodine. These
have since been reprinted in her volume, TJ'rois Essais sur le
Roman de Lancelot du Lac et la Quéte du Saint Graal
(Paris, 1919).

-——- reviews by J. D. Bruce, RR, X, 377 ff. (1919), and A. Pauphilet,
Romania, XLV, 521 tt. (1917 —1919),

M. Lot-Borodine, Les deux conquérants du Graal: Perceval et Galaad,
Romania, ‘XLVIL 41 ff. (1921), and in her volume just men-
tioned.

Albert Pauphilet, Etudes sur la Queste del Saint Graal attribuée a
Gautier Map (Paris, 1921).

Paul Martens, Zur Lanzelotsage, Boehmer’s Romamische Studien, V,
643 ff. (1880).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Interature 409

G. Paris, Etudes sur les romans de la Table Ronde, Romania, X,
465 ff. (1881), XI, 459 ff. (1883).

G. Huet, Le Lancelot en prose et Meraugis de Portlesguez, Romania,
XLI, 518 ff. (1912).

E. Freymond, Zum Livre d'Artus, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XVI, 90ff. (1912).

— Beitrige zur Kenntnis der altfranzésischen Artusromane in Prosa,
Zs. f. fre. Spr. u. Litt., XVI’, 1 ft. (1895).

H. O. Sommer, The Structure of Le Livre d’Artus and its Function
in the Evolution of the Arthurian Prose-Romances (London and
Paris, 1914).

G. Paris and Jacob Ulrich, Merlin, roman en prose du XIII® siécle,
publié avec la mise en prose du poéme de Merlin de Robert de
Boron, d’aprés le manuscrit appartenant 4°M. Alfred H. Huth
(2 vols. Paris, 1886): Société des Anciens Textes Francais)

Karl von Reinhardtstoettner, A Historia dos Cavalleiros da Mesa
Redonda e da Demanda do Santo Graall (Berlin, 1887).

— review by G. Paris, Romania, XVI, 582t. (1887).

Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin, Libros de Caballerias: Primera Parte:
Ciclo arturico = Ciclo carolingio: pp. 3—162, El Baladro del
Sabio Merlin, Primera Parte de la Demanda del Sancto Grial;
pp. 163—338, La Demanda del Sancto Grial con los maravillos
Fechos de Lanzarote y de Galaz, su Hijo, Segunda Parte de la
Demanda del Sancto Grial (Madrid, 1907): Nueva Biblioteca de
Autores Espafioles.

E. Wechseler, Uber die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Robert von
Borron zugeschriebenen Graal-Lancelot-Cyklus (Halle, 1895).
Habilitationsschrift. :

Otto Klob, Beitrage zur Spanischen und Portugiesischen Graal-Literatur,
Zs, f. rom. Ph., XXVI, 169ff. (1902).

— Dois Episodios da Demanda do Santo Graal, Rivista Lusitana,
VI, 332 ff. (1910).

H. O. Sommer, The Queste of the Holy Grail forming the third part
of the trilogy indicated in the Suite du Merlin, Huth MS.,
Romania, XXXVI, 369ff., 548 ff. (1907).

— age and Perceval, MPh., V; 5bff., 181 ff. (1907), 291 ff.
(1908).

—- Zor Kritik der altfranzdsischen Artus-Romane in Prosa, Zs.
rom. Ph., XXXII, 327 ff. (1908).

— Die Abenteuer Gawains, Ywains und Le Morholts mit den drei
Jungfrauen aus der Trilogie (Demanda) des Pseudo-Robert de
Borron (Halle, 1913): Beihefte zur Zs. f. rom. Ph., No. 47.

Google

410 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

E. Vettermann, Die Balen-Dichtungen und ihre Quellen (Halle, 1918):
Beihefte zur Zs. f. rom. Ph., No. 60

A. Pauphilet, La Queste du Saint Graal du MS. Bibl. Nat. Fr. 343,
Romania, XXXVI, 591 ff. (1907).

K. Pietsch, MS. 2—G—®5 of the Palace Library at Madrid, MPh.,
XI, 1 ff. (1903).

— Madrid Manuscript of the Spanish Grail Fragments, tbid., X VU,
147 ff. (1920), 591 ff. (1921).

Editions of the Didot-Perceval: E. Hucher, Le Saint Graal, I, 415ff.
(La Mans and Paris, 1874) and J. L. Weston, Legend of Sir
Perceval, II, 9ff. (London, 1909). — Cp. E. Brugger's review
of the latter, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXVI’, 3t ff. (1910).

Walter Hoffmann, Die Quellen des Didot-Perceval. Halle diss. 1905.

H. O. Sommer, Messire Robert de Borron und der Verfasser des Didot-
Perceval (Halle, 1908): Beihefte zur Zs. f. rom. Ph., No. 17.

— review by E. Brageger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXXVI' , pp. 7 ff.
(1910).

F. Lot, Nouvelles Etudes sur le cycle arthurien, Romania, XLV,
16ff. (1917—1919).

Ch. Potvin, Perlesvaus, in Vol. I (Mons, 1866) of his Perceval le
gallois ou le Conte du Graal.

Sebastian Evans, The High History of the Holy Grail (2 vols. London,
1898): The Temple Classics.

John Thomas Lister, Perlesvaus, Hatton Manuscript 82, Branch I.
(Menasha, Wis., 1921): University of Chicago thesis.

For the Perlesvaus consult the treatises (named above) on the Grail
by Birch-Hirschfeld and Heinzel, Miss Weston’s Sir Lancelot
and Sir Perceval books — also, Brugger’s articles, entitled
L’Enserremeut Merlin, in Zs. 7. frz. Spr. u. Litt. — parti-
culary, XXIX', 77 ff. (1905) — and. Sommer's article, hy
Queste of the Holy Grail’. Romania, XXXVI ( 1907). :
besides, on the date of the romance, IL, 154, note 24, eee:

Robert Williams, Y Seint Greal [Welsh version of 1. the Vulgate
Queste, 2. Perlesvaus| ... edited with a translation and glos
sary (London, 1876).

E. Wechssler, Handschriften des Perlesvaus, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XX,
80 ff. (1896).

W. A. Nitze, The Old French Grail Romance, Perlesvaus (Baltimore,
1902): Johns Hopkins University diss.

— Glastonbury and the Holy Grail, MPh., 1, 247 ff. (1903).

— The Glastonbury Passages in the Perlesvaus. (University of North
Carolina] Studies in Philology, XV, 7 ff. (1918).

Google

A Select Bibliography of Arthurian Critical Literature 411

W. A. Nitze, On the Chronology of the Grail Romances, MPh., XVII,
151 ff. (1919), 605ff. (1920).

G. Baist, Parzival und der Gral (Freiburg i. B., 1909): Prorektoratsrede.

J. L. Weston, Notes on the Grail Romances, Romania, XLIU, 403i.
(1914).

— The Perlesvaus and the Vengeance Raguidel, idid., XLVII, 349ft.
(1921),

J. D. Bruce, Arthuriana, RR, IJ, 173ff. (1912) — particularly the
section. “Arthur's Son, Lohot’, pp. 179ft.

— The Development of the Mort Arthur Theme in Mediaeval Ro-
mance, ibid., IV, 403 ff. (1913).

G. Huet, Deux personnages arturiens [Lohot and Dodinel le Sauvagel,
Romania, XLIII, 100ff. (1914).

E. A. Hall, Spenser and Two Old French Grail Romances, PMLA,
XXVIII, 589 ff. (1913).

E. Léseth, Tristanromanens gammelfranske prosahaandskrifter. University
of Christiania thesis. 1888.

— Le roman en prose de Tristan, le roman de Palaméde et la com-
pilation de Rusticien de Pise: analyse critique d’aprés les manu-
=e de Paris (Paris, 1890): Bibliothéque de l'Ecole des Hautes
‘tudes. ;

— Le Tristan et le Palaméde des manuscrits francais du British
Museum (Christiania, 1905): Videnskabs-Selskabets Skrifter, II,
Hist.-Filos. Klasse, 1905, No. 4.

John Colin Dunlop: History of Prose Fiction: a New Edition, revised
with Notes, Appendices and Index by Henry Wilson (2 vols.,
London, 1896).

F. CE - Tavola Ritonda o l'istoria di Tristano (2 parts, Bologna,
1864—~5).

Ernst Schiirhoff, Uber den Tristan-Roman des Jean-Maugin. Halle
diss. 1909.

J. D. Bruce, A Boccaccio Analogue in the Old French Prose Tristan,
RR, 1, 384 ff. (1910).

For the bibliography of the only Greek Arthurian romance,
ep. II, 295, above.

H. O. Sommer, edition of Malory’s Morte Darthur, III, 295 ff. (1891).

Ireneo Sanesi, Storia di Merlino (Bergamo, 1898): Biblioteca storica
della letteratura, ILI.

L. A. Paton: Notes on Manuscripts of the Prophecies de Merlin,
PMLA, XXVIII, 121 ff. (1913).

Google

412 Evolution of Arthurian Romance

G. Paris, article on Le Chevalier du Papegau, HLF, XXX, 103¢t.
(1888).
Ferdinand. Heuckenkamp, Le Chevalier du Papegau (Halle, 1896).
F. Saran, Ueber Wirnt von Grafenberg und den Wigalois, PBB, XXI,
— «- 263 ft. (1896).

J. D. Bruce, Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanii; Two Arthurian
Romances of the XIIIth century in Latin Prose (Gittingen and
Baltimore, 1913). Hesperia: Schriften zur englischen Philologie,
herausgegeben von Hermann Collitz und James W. Bright, Er-

. g&nzungsreihe, 2. Heft *’.

Margaret Shove Morris, The Authorship of the De Ortu Waluuanii
and the Historia Meriadoci, PMLA, XXII, 599ff. (1908).
Paul Meyer, Les Enfances Gauvain: fragments d'un poéme perda,

Romania, XXXIX, 1 ff. (1910).

Pio Rajna, Le Fonti dell’ Orlando Furioso (second edition, Florence,
1900).

Henri Hauvette, Luigi Alamanni (Paris, 1903).

Giulio Bertoni, Nuovi Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo (Bologna, .1904).

ee

17 For the earlier editions of these romances by the same editor,
cp. II, 33, note 1, above.

Google

Index of Critics.

Achelis, H., I, 206f.

Ablstrém, Axel, I, 95. — IT, 75, 175,
186.

Alton, Johann. II, 264

Anscombe. A.. I, 7.8. — IJ, 47-8. 49

Anwyl, E., I, 51, 74

Appel, C.. I. 163

Arferth, P., I, 168

Armstrong, E. C.. II, 217

Amold, .Thomas. I. 11

Baechtold. J., I. 207

Baist. G.. I. "52, 116, 203, 223, 265,
263, 264. 265. 266. 358. — IT, 76.
79, '80. 99. 103, 157. 165

Bale, John, II, 34

Barbazan, IL 186

Bardoux, J., I. 371

Barto. P. S.. 11, 164

Bartsch. K.. J, 252. 326, 330. — II, 64

Basset, René. II, 182

Baudis, J.. I, 97, 303

Bayot, A. IJ, 182

Becker. P. A., I, 71. — IT. 63. 67. 73

Bédier. Joseph, I, 13, 51. 68. 126, 152,
153. 155, 158, 160, 161, 162, 168.
164, 165, 167, 170, 173, 175, 176,
181, 184, 186, 188. 286. 288. 292.
489. — IT. 23. 175

Behagel, O.. I, 326, 328

Bellamy, F., I. 34

Bergin, O. J.T. 172

Bertoni, G., J. 15. 16, 56. 163. -— II. 25,

Billings, A. H.. I. 128

Birch, W. de G.. I, 449

Birch-Hirschfeld. A., J, 13, 221, 222,
237, 240, 242, 290, 292. 322, 369,
370, 372, 374, 376f. — II, 34, 83.
85, 105, 108, 109, 114. 126. 128,
153, 154, 161, 162, 163, 164

Bjorkman, E,, 1. 27

Blate, JF. D., J, 306, 321. 327, 328

Bolte (J.) and Polivka (G.), I, 22, 167,

169, 218, 298

Google

Bonilla y San Martin, A., I. 163. 255

Bonnet. M., IT, 52

Borchling. Conrad, IT. 299

Borderie, A. de la, I, 7, 8. — II, 45

Borodine. M. (= Mme. Lot-Borodine),
J. 112, 411, 420, 425. — IT. 68

Boser, César, I, 9

Bossert, A.. I. 126, 162

Bodtticher, G., I, 334

Bradley, H., I, 370

Brakelinann, J., I, 161

Branscheid, P., I. 28

Brauner. G., I, 369. — II, 147

Breuer, Hermann, II, 243, 287

Brewer, J.8. 1, 77

Brown, A. C. L., 1, 29, 88, 84, 85, 87,
92, 94, 95. 96. 97, 98. 120, 139, 190,
211. 214, 215, 256, 267, 269. 271,
272, 273, 274. 295. 310, 340f., 358,
466. — II, 73-4, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81,
134

Bruce, J. D., I, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 77, 78, 79, 81, 113, 139, ‘145,
203. 208, 215, 264. 279, 302, 311.
312, 332, 340f., 353. 369. 374 f., 378,
384, 391, 393-5, 398-404, 406-9,
411, 413f., 419, 420, 422, 424, 426,
427, 428, 430, 431, 434, "436, 437,
438, 439. 441. 444, 447, 448, 449.
453. 45-4, 4156, 457. 4165, 470, 473,
488, 492, 493. — IT, 6, 13, 15, 16,
19, 33. 34, 35, 38, 57, 112, 121, 139,
142, 143, 148, 149, 154, 155, 157,
163, 172, 280, 318, 320, 349, 356,
360, 366, 371

Brugger, E., I, 21, 22, 29, 30, 37, 60,
61, 66, 67, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 101.
135, 144, 146, 150, 151, 154, 168,
186, 189, 197, 201, 202, 299, 235,
247, 253, 256, 272, 273, '282, 285-7,
289, 292, 293, 301, 303, 305, 306,
310, 314, 318. 319, 320, 826, 327.

331, 344, 358, 366-8, 3 70-2,

374, 379, 286, ost ‘403-5, 409, 428,

ee

414

431, 438, 445, 450, 452, 455, 459,
460, 466, 468, 475, 476, 479, 481,
484. — , 54, 20, 71, 73, 81, 87,
92, 100, 101, 110-11, 112, 116, 121,
123, 124, 126, 127, 131, 136-141,
150, 151, 153, 155, 158, 176, 246, 264

Brynjulfeon, G., I, 162

Burdach, K., I, "257, 258

Campbell, J. F., I, 47, 77, 89, 171

Campbell, J. G., I, 189

Carter, C. H., I, 212

Cassel, P., I, 257f.

Chadwick, H. M., II, 48

Chestre, Thomas, I, 128

Clédat, L, I, 249

Clodd, E., I,’ 208

Cohen, G., I, 63, 102, 114

Jol fi, 'B., I, 1

Courthope, W. J., I, 68

Courtney, M. A... I, 34

Cox, E. G.,

Crane, T. ¥., ‘I 103

Critchlow, F. L., I, 124

Cross, T. P., I, 92, 93. 97, 181, 182.
— IT, 180, 181, 184, 186, 225

D’Arbois de Jubainville, H., I, 53, 83,
94, 97, 174, 175, 176, 183

De Boer, C., I, 102

Degering, H., I, 159

Delisle. Leopold, I, 18

Deutschbein, M., I, 189. — II, 38

Dickinson, W. H., I, 11, 72, 73

Dorner, H., I, 64, 66

Dottin, G., I, 98, 171, 182, 190. —

II, 81

Douhet, Comte de, I, 230

Dressler, A., I, 111

Dreyer, Karl, IT, 64

Duchesne, L., I, 9

Dunlop, J. C. (in his History of Prose
Fiction, revised by H. Wilson),
J, 484. — II, 20, 21, 25, 26

Dunn, E. C, I, 227

Durdan, A. L., IT, 180

Edens, R., I, 62, 63. 68, 72

Ehrismann, G., II, 75, 76

Ellissen, A., II, 28

Ethe, H., I, 191

Evans, J. G., I, 45, 181, 343-5

Evans, Sebastien, 1, 24. — II, 156,
164, 165, 171

yGoogle _

A ED
cc A A SD

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Faraday, W., I, 87

Faral, Edmond, T, 13, 14, 15, 107, 111,
119. — I], 57

Faust, A. B., I, 334

Fehr, B., I, 259

Feuerherd, P., I, 22

Fisher, L. A., I, 242, 244, 245, 260,

298

Fletcher, R. H., I, 5, 7, 11, 18, 22,
23, 26, 36, 80

Foerster, Wendelin, I, 12, 14, 17, 38,
80, 101, 103, 109, 112, 114, 115,
116, 117, 119, 155, 156, 157, 195,
201, 203, 204. 206, 210, 211, 215,
222. 242° 249, 250, 252, 253, 255,
294. 319, 320, 326, 327, 328, 336,
489. — Ul, 64, 65, 56, 63, 64, 66,
69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81,
82, 110, 114, 115, 116, 120, 154

Foucart, F., I, 281

Foulet, Lucien, I, 17, 59, 61, 62, 64,
65, 66, 157. — IT, 181-2, 183, 184,
185, 187

Fowler, J. T., I, 6

Fra Gaetano de Teresa, I, 363f.

ee Sir J.G., The Golden Bough,

, 16

Freymond, E., I, 11, 41, 42, 53, 147,
431, 437, 444. — IT, 117-8, 259

Friedel, V. H., I, 47

Friedwagner, M., I, 444, 453. — IT,

' 202-3, 208, 209, 215

Furnivall, F. J., I, 128

Gaede, W., II, 63, 67
Gaspary, A., lI, 40

Gaster, M., [, 242, 354

Gay, L. M., I, 444

Gebhardt, A,, I, 336

Gelzer, H., I, 16. — IU, 38, 220
Gidel, M. A. C., II, 28

Gierach, E., I, 159

Gietmann, G., II, 165

Gillespy, F. L., I, 35

Gléde, O., I, 162

Goldschmidt, M., I, 360, 352
Golther, W., I, 38, 39, 115, 116, 152,
, 154, 156, 159, 162, 163, 164,
182,
207,
ate

336,
451, 484. — ti 81° 96, 64.79,

Index of Critics

Gorra, E., J, 175

Graesse, J. G., I, 269

Graf, A., I, 163. — IJ. 254, 259

Greiner, Walter, II, 73

Griffith, R. H., IL 27, 307. 310. 311,
339

Grisebach, E., II, 78

Grdber, G., I, 156, 319, 367. 400, 412,
456, 484, 489. — II, 26. 87. 108,
154, 276

Gruffydd. W. J.. ‘I. 46. 74. 75, 76,
286

Guest, E., IT, 48

Guest, Lady Charlotte. I. 45, 46
Gullberg, G.. IT, 186

Guyer. F. E.. I, 102

Habemann. Caser, IJ, 203

Hagen, P., I, 318. 319, 325, 326. 328.
329, 339, 355. — LU. 64

Hahn, K. A., II. 299

Hall, BE. A., II, 14

Hardy, T. D., 1, 24. 176

Harnack, A.. T, "355

Harper, C. A., I, 22, 89

Haupt, Moritz. If, 298

Hauvette, H., II, 25, 40

Hearne, Thomas, II, 169

Heeger, G., I, 8, 22. — IT, 51

Heinrich. G. A., I, 268, 288, 325

Heinzel, R., I, 153. 158, 161, 299 235.
240, 242, 257, 259, 261. 277. 280,
287, 288, 289, 291, 293, 294, 300,
304, 305, 308, 326, 328, 374, 379.
381f., 386, 388, 389. 391, 392, 401,
421, 422, 461, 466, 470, 474.
IJ, 17, 86, 87, 88, 103, 108, 114.
118, 119, 120, 128, 132. 135. 138.
140, 151, 154, 156. 164

Heller, B., I. 169

Henderson, G., I, 89, 92

Herbert. J. A., I, 196

Hertz, W.., I, 33. 154, 162, 163. 167,
168, 169, 177, 191, "240, 251, 252,
288, 309, 311, 314. 326. 329, 358,
360. — II. 175, 184, 185, 187

Herzog, E., I. 119

Heuckenkamp. Ferdinand, IT, 31

Heusler, A., I, 52

Heyl, K., I, 105

Hibbard, L., I, 202f.

Hildebrand, RB. I, 252

Hilka, A., L 116, 158, 177

Hill, Raymond Thompson, IT, 215

Google

a a ee earn a rr ee we

Hinton, J., I, 370

Hippeau, C., IT. 208

Hodges, J. C., I, 97. — II, 78

Hoepfner, E., I, 161. — II, 175

Hoffmann, H., II, 298

Hoffmann, K., I, 25

Hoffmann, W., II, 109, 123

Holder, A., I, 5

Holland. W. L., If. 62

Holtzmann, A., I, 3, 38, 265

Hopkins. A. B., I. 2d, 37, 113

Horak, W., II, 186

Hucher, E., I, 487. — II, 20, 21, 22
104, 116, 124

Huet, G., I, 57, 88, 153, 177, 187, 213,
409. — If. 16. 19, 203

Hall, E.. I, 77

Imelmann, R.. I, 28, 29. 31, 154
Iselin, L. E.. I, 357

James, M. R.. I, 370

Jeanroy. A., I, 150, 291. — IT. 57, 76,
154

Jenkins, T. A., I, 56

John, I. B., I, 181

Johnston, O. M., I, 59. — II, 80, 180,

Jonckbloet, W. J. A, J, 125, 331, —
II, 217, 303, 304, ‘205, 306

Jones, W. L., T, 18. 20

Junk, V.. I. 388f.

Kaluza, Max, IJ, 208-9

Kelemina, J., I, 160

Khull, Ferdinand, II, 299

Kingsford, C. L., I, 373

Kirchrath, Leonhard. II, 224

Kittredge, G. L.. I, 88, 89, 128, 280,
263, 280. — Il, 12, 35, 99-100, 103,
163, 179, 185, 187, 218, 243, 286

Klein. A., 1, 469

Klob. 0., I, 459. — IT, 291

Klose, Martin, IT, 265

Knieschek, A., I, 159

Kohler, R., I, "191. — IT, 175, 297

Kilbing. E., I, 126, 162, 168, 371. —
II. 64, 74, 77

Kool. J. H., Il, 69

Koschwitz, E., If, 115

Kraus, A., I, 292

Krom. N. J., I, 47

Krumbacher, II, 28

Kichler, W., I, 112

Kuhse, H., II, 246

416

Kipp, 0., I, 322, 326
Kurz, J. B., I, :

Lachmann, K., I, 313

Lafon, Mary. IT, 287, 288

Langlois. E., IT, 259, 285

Leach, H. G.. II, 306

Le Braz, A.. I, 182

Leitzymann, A., I, 18, 24, 812

fe Roux de Lincy, I, 25. 288

Levi, E.. I, 66. — II, 182

Lewis, T., I. 78, 264. — IT, 155

Lichtenstein, J,, I, 320, 822, 823, 334

Liebermann, F., 1 1

Liebrecht, F. I, 34. 191

Lister, J. T.. Il, 8, 163

Lloyd, J. E., I, 19, 69, 130, 131

Lloyd, J. H. I, 172

Longnon, Auguste, Il, 286

Loomis, R. S., I, 164, 166

Léseth, E., J, 161, 399, 406, 465. 169,
482, , 485, 486, 487, 488, 489.
— I, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 116

Lot, F., I, 10. 11, 13, 21, 51, 60, 61.
63, 73, 76. 77, 78-81. 83. 87, 90,
91, 109, 130, 131, 136, 138, 141,
143. 144, 183, 157. 177, 178, 180,
182. 183, 196, 197, 199. 200. 202;
222, 260, 276, 284, 286, 288. 332,
369, 374-6, 378f., 383. 386. 391-3.
395, 397-9, 401, 403-413, 415, 416,
418, 420. 422, 430, 441. 442, 451,
452, 465. — II, 5. 6. 7. 39, 47, 58,
60, 70. 71, 72, 81. 86, 87, 105. 111,
112. 121, 142-4, 147, 133, 164, 181,
184-5, 319, 366

Lot-Borodine, Mme. See Borodine, N,

Loth, J.. J, 11. 12, 21, 41, 42, 43-48,
53, 70, 75. 77. 78, 80, 81, 87, 98,
109, 173, 179, 180. 181, 182, 183,
184, 185, 189. 252, 267, 288. 313,
344, 36. — II, 55-6, 70, 72, 73,
90, 181, 183, 225

Lowes, J. L., lI, 80

Ltck, R., I, 313

Lutoslawski. W., J, 161, 162

Luzel, F. M.. I, 39

Macalister, R. A. S., I, 92

Mac Culloch, J. A., I, 97

Mackenzie, K., IT, 80

Macneill, J., I, 249

Madden, Sir Frederick, I, 18, 27, 29,
32, 128

Google

Ee ed

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Marold, K., I, 162

-Marquard, W., Il, 288
, 403f

Martens, P., :
Martin, °C. T., TL, 24, 176
Martin, E., I, 268, 277, 306, 321, 329.

Melzi, G., II, 294
Menendez y Pelayo, IT, 291
Mennung, Albert, If, 102.

‘Meon, M., II, 215, 217

Meyer. J. J, T, 170

Meyer, Kuno, l, 6, 92, 94, 97, 176.
177, 249, 272

Meyer, Ps Tl, 29, 223, ao 451, 452.
— Il, 38, "80, "85, 163, 2

Meyer-Litbke. W., 1, 67, 91, 100, 101,
102. — II, 58, "64, 71

Michaelis de V asconcellos, C., I, 460

Michel, F.. I, 161, 230, 292. — IT, 28,
114, 118, 186, 937-8, 254

Michelant, H., UJ, 278

Mogk, E., IT, "306, 307

Mommseen, Theodor, I, 5, 7. 9. — II,
45, 47, 52

Monroe, B. 8. I, 27

Morf, H.. I, 161

Morgan, Louise B., II, 77.

Mérner, M., I, 103

Morrison. A. J.. II. 69

Morriss, M. §,, II, 34

Mott, L. F., I. 86

Miillenhoff, K.. IJ, 52

Mitller, Max. [, 4

Muret. E., I, 1h2-+4, 158-161, 176, 183,
189

Murray, M. A.. I, 356. 394

Mussafia, A., IT, 229

Neilson, G., I, 27

Neilson, W. A., I, 106

Nettlau, Max, J, 92

Newell, W. W., I, 8, 21, 42, 199, 240.
244, 249, 252, 265. — MI, 61, 54,
108, 107, 223,

Nicholson. E. W. B., I, 5. — Hy, 48,

49

Nicholson, R. A., I, 436

Nitze, W. A., I, 96, 120, 159, 199,
255, 263, 263, 274, 277-283, 288,

Index of Critics

289, 344, 460. — II. 8, 12, 68. 69.
73, 2b, 16, 77, 146, 151, 152. 153,
164, 155, 156, 157, 161, 163. 165,
166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172

Nolte, A., I, 334

Novati, F., I, 154, 155, 158

Nutt, Alfred, I, 46, 47, 77, 97, 108,
249, 264, 267-271, 280, 305-308,

343, 345, 354, 357, 374, 376, 391,

421, — i, 72, 76, 108, 119, 154
Nyrop, K., L, 350. — II, 131

Ogle, M. B., I, 203. — IIT, 60-1, 68,
102, 181, 186

Orlowski, Boleslas, II, 215, 217

Orr, J., I, 318

Othmer, Karl, II, 62, 63

Otto, G., I, 111

Owen, Aneurin, I, 45

Owen, E., I, 286

Pace, R. B., I, 226, 249

Panzer, F., I, 336

Paris, Gaston, I, 15, 25, 51, 52, 58,
61, 67, 68, 69, 84, 89, 100, 102,
03, 109, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123,
124, 129, 130, 144, 145, 150, 154,
155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 168, 176,
183, 196, 199, 201, 202, 205, 206,
210, 221, 222, 265, 290-3, 306, 309,
an 326, 329, 331, 332, 344, 350,
462, 463, 464, 474, 479, 480, 485,
486, 487, 489, 494. — ll, 20, 21.
22, ‘81, 54-5, 62, 64, 70, 72, 83, 84,
103, 114, 115, 118, 123, 137, 138-9,
146, 153, 183, 184, 186, 293-4, 243.

276
Paris, Paulin, I, 29, 144, 202, 230,

p=
Oo

360, 370, 405, 410, 443, — I, 20,

21, 116, 118, 122, 123, 128, 146

Parodi, E. G., T, 163

Pascual de Gayangos, IT, 292 -

Patch, H. R., I, 202f.

Paton, L. A., I, 33, 77, 79, 80, 109,
133, 139, 143, 149, 150, 215, 302,
438. — II, 28, 29, 30, 293

Paul, H., I, 162

Pauphilet, A., I, 374, 376-9, 425, 458,
469, 470. — II, 139, 142

Peebles, R. J., I, 257, 259, 272, 289,
381 f

Perrett. W., I, 22
Pessen, E., II, 246
Hefperia, Ergdujungsrethe: 9.

Google

374, 396, 400, 407, 441, 458,

417

Peter, A., II, 301

Petrie, H., I, 11

Pfeiffer, F., I, 38. — II, 64, 74

Philipot, E,, I, 109. — Il, 60, 62, 68,
183

Phillimore, E., I, 11, 131, 133, 141,
183. — TI, 90,

Phillips, G., I, 369

Pietsch, K., Ty, 460

Pillet, ‘A, il, 80

Pineau, L., I, 200

Piquet, F., I, 162, 166. — II. 64

Pitra, J. B., J, 261

Plummer, C., II, 45

Pokorny, J., I, 359

Polidori, F. L., I, 163, 448. — I, 294

Porter, A. K., L 15, 16

Potter, M. A. I, 413. — IT, 181

Potvin, C., I, '88, 89, 223, 290f., 307.
—- U, 8, 10, 85, 161

Prettyman, C. W., II, 179-180

Pschmadt, Carl, II, 102

Pitz, F., I, 69

Raine, Allen, II, 70
Rajna, F pies I, 12, 13, 14, 65. 164. —
4

el Me L., J, 66. — II, 185

Regel, Karl, If, 297-8

Rhys, John (Sir), I, 4, 40, 43, 44, 45,
51, 78, 79, 94, 196, 197, 200, 201.
267, 269, 271, 277, 343, 423, 427,
441

Richter, E., I, 56. — II, 82
Rickert, E., I, 56. — II, 175, 180
Riese, A., I, 420

Robinson, F. N., I, 92

Rochat, A., I, 291, 308, 314, 322
Rochault de Fleury, C., I, 360
Rohde, Richard, II, 209

Roquefort, J B. B., I, 360. — I, 186
Roques, M., IT, 68, 69

Réttiger, W., L, 154, 155, 160, 161
Riickert, Heinrich, II, 299

Rue, de la (Abbé), I, 26

Salter, H., I, 19

Sanesi, Oreneo, II, 29, 293

San Marte (= A. Schulz), I, 5, 7. 18,
22 76, 134, 136, 318, aoe: 329, —

ll, 62
Saran, F., II, 31
Sarrazin, 'G., II, 298-9
Scheler, 'A., L 350

27

418

Schirmer, II, 259
Schoepperle, G. (Mrs. R. 8. Loomis),
T, 88, 152, 163, 159, 160, 165, 167,

168, 170, 171, 172, 178, 174, 175,

176, 177, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190,
191, 192, — I
Schofield, W. 4A, I, 65, 109, 164, 213,
443. — II, 73, 184, 186
Schinbach, A., I, 322, — If, 299
Schorbach, A. L 290. — Il, 300
Schrider, E., I, ‘336
Schroeder, L. yon, I, 367-359
rage F., I, 119. — II, 78
Seyger, R., I, 35
Sharpe, J., I, 11
Sheldon, E. S., I, 66. — II, 69
Siegenfeld, A. von, I, 322
pegs K., I, 253, 277, 326
Sin % 167, 314, 316, 317, 319,
a5 324, 328, 330, 336, 352. == Ii.

Siuts, H., I, 200, 203. — I, 82

Skene, W. F., I, 40, 41, 42, 73, 129

Smirnov, A., I, 180, 185, 286. — I,
73

63,
Séderhjelm, W., I, 158
Sommer, H. O., I, 14, 30, 87, 331, 369,
403, 427, 438, 443, 444, "445, 446,
447, 448, 462, 468, 469, 470, 474,
' 481. — II, 2 , 8, 30, 104,
110-11, 112, 121, 123, 124, 125, 138,
145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 162, 166,
158, 159, 160, 169, 170, 312, 362,

Sommer-Tolomei, E., I, 163

Sparnaay, H., II
Staerck, W., I, 257, 365
Stein, H., I, 16a

Sterzenbach, T., I, 366

Stevenson, W. ‘H., I, 7. — IT, 48, 49

Stevenson, W. M., I, 117. — UH, 182

Stimming, A., II, 287

Struck, C., I, "340

Stuart-Glennie, J. 8., I,

Suchier, H., I, 13, 25, baa.” — on 33,
114, 118, 163, 298

Sudre, L ‘ I, 163

Sypherd, W. E., I, 88, 176

Tatlock, J. S. P., I, 65

Tausendfreund, H., I, 22
Taylor, Archer, II, 6

Google

I, 94,
Van Hamel, A A.G.,
78

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Taylor, R., I, :

Ten Brink, B.,

te Winkel, J., L 156, 331. — II, 303
edens, Robert, I,

Thomas, A., II, 80

Thomas, Henry, IT, 290

Thorstenberg, Edward, II, 307

Thurneysen, Rudolf, I, 8, 7, 8, 9, 199,
266, 342. — II, 46, 47, 61, 63

Tilley, A., II, 39

Tobler, A., Il, 276

Todd, i. A., II, 172

Toldo, P., II, 180

Ulbrich, A., I, 26
Urbach, T., I, 326

van der Stempel, Bertha M., IT. 304
Vandryes, J.,
i 116, 120. — II,

Venturi, A., I, 15, 16

Vettermann, Ne I, 278, 469, 462, 466,
467, 475, "479, 480

Vetterman, jd

per e la, ih iL I, 39, 129.

Visscher, L. oe II, 28

Voelker, P., le

Vollmiller, ” K.,

von der Hagen, tr 158. — II, 28
“—e oo \voldra’n, IT, 208, 259,

Wackernagel, K., I, 318

Wade-Evans, A., T, "”, 8, — IT, 49-50

Waitz, Hugo, L 290'

Walberg, E ae ’ 460f.

Waldner, L., I 26

Walker, .. I, "442

Ward, H. L. D., I, 20, 24, 25, 136,
136, 141, 197, 369, 871, 486. —_ I,
21, 90, 34, 114

Warnke, K., "I, 63, 62, 66. — II, 175,
183, 1 186”

Warren, F. M., I, 26, 81, 111, 177,

Wassmuth, Theodor, II, 259, 260

Wechssler, E., I, 29, ‘OM, ‘108, 106, 107,
321, 326, 327, 372, 374, 422, 436,
447, 459, 461, 462, 463, 468, 469,
474, 475, 476, 477, 480, 481, 486.
— Ih 8, 64-57, 83, 105, 106, 107,
120, 121, 122, ‘123° 124, 138, 145

Index of Critics

Weeks, R.. I, 223

Weidner, G., I, 236

Weismann. 1, 355

Wells, J. E., I, 27

Wendeburg, 'O., I, 25

Wesselofsky, A., I, 334-6, 394

Weston, J. L. (Miss), I, 67, 86, 92,
128, 184, 195, 196, 205, 210, 211,
212, 213, 215, 216, 242,
278, 279, 282-8, 290-4,
306, 310, 326, 328, 331, 347, ;
362, 353, 371, 372, 374, 427, 428.
— I, 1, 3, 54, 86. 91-103 (her
"Gawain- -Complex”), 104, 110, 112,
1238, 124, 136, 142, 144, 146, 153.
154, 164, 171, 304. 305.

Wiegandt, BR. II, 300

Wilhelm, F., T

Williams,

Williams,

Williams,

Williams,

Wilmotte, M., I, 26, 100, 107, 111,
117, 123, 157, 292

Google

419

Windisch, Ernst, I, 6, 9, 20, 24, 95,
179, 344, 358. — II, 45, 72, 79

Winkler, E., I, 56. — II, 41

Witte, R., I, 111

Wood, G. B., I, 247

Woodbridge, B. R., II. 61

Wright, T., I, 370

Wuelcker, R., I, 29

Wolff, F., I, 450f.

Zarncke, F., I, 22, 262, 265, 326, 327

Zeidler, Julius, II, 26

Zielke, O., II, 186-7

Zenker, R., I, 160, 191. — II, 61, 63,
64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 73, 77, 184, 321

Ziegler, M., IT, 114

Zimmer, Heinrich, I, 3, 6. 7, 8, 9, 13,
20, 22, 39, 40, 46, 52, 53, 59, 60,
63, 65, 69, 70, 74, 75, 78, 81, 83,
87, 93, 94, 108, 109, 156, 173, 178,
179, 186, 193, 197, 201. 248, 269.
— IT, 45, 46, 51, 56, 70, 71, 131,
184, 186

Zimmermann, M. G., I, 15

Zimmermann, R.. J, 128

27*

Index of Subject=Matter.

Aberteivi, II, 72
, King of Edessa, I, 390

Acheflour (= Blanchefleur), I, 310

Achilles, spear of, I, 382

Acornbury (Aconbury), II, 49

Acta Bartholomaei, I, 388

Acts of the Apostles, Simon and
Judas, I, 386f.

Adam and Eve, IT, 313

Adam, son of J oseph of Arimathea,

1

, 208-

Adonis Cult, I, 277 eT 288 f.

Adventurous Bed, Ii, 34

Adventurous Palace, rf 356, 359

Aed Abrat, I, 96

Aed mac Gabrain, I, 6

Aeddan Vradawe, "the traitor, I, 44

Aeglippus, I, 401

Aelis, I, 63

Aeneas, IT, 63. — II, ae

Aethelward (Chronicle), I

Aetna, I, 34. — I, 259

Aglebal, TL, 401

Aglibal, I, 401

Agloval, I, 331, 332, 400f., 405, 410.
— Il. 345f. ‘(in prose Lancelot)

Agned (scene of one of Arthur's
battles), I, 7

Agravain, I, 400, 432. 433, 436, 449,
473, 476. — II, 346 ff. (in prose
Lancelot). 370f. (in Mort Artu)

Agravain, division of the prose Lan-
celot, I, 398, 400, 402, 417, 427,
433, 438, {55. — II, 346 ff. (ana-
lysi is)

Agravain’s Hill, II. 347

Aigidecht Arthur (= Entertainment
of Arthur), J. 92

Ailill (King of Connaught), I, 83, 84,
106

Atthed, Celtic elopement story, I,
171 ff., 189

Google

Alain (Alein, Alein li Gros), Bron’s
son, I, 146, 234-7, 308. — II, 2, 7,
122, 126, 127, 185, 160, 172, S11f.
(in 'L'Estotre)

Alain, King of Norway, I, 350-2

Alamanni, Luigi, II, 26, 40-1, 294

Alan Fergant, I, 70

Alanus de Ingulis, I, 76. — IT, 52

Alardin del Lac, I, 91

Alatiel, I, 492

Albin (Saint), I, 28

Albion (Britain), IT, 63

Alclut (= Dumbarton), I, 44, 427

Alein {li Gros). See Alain.

Aleine (Elainne), Arthur’s niece, II,
107

Alexander, Prince of Constantinople
and Cliges’ 8 father, I, 113

Alexander (the Great) Saga, I, 177,
354f., 471

Alexander of Neckham, I, 410

Alexandre l’Orphelin,. Il, 30

Alexandre, Roman d', I 111

Alibon, Aliblon, II, 172

Alis, Cliges’s brother, I, 114, 115, 117

Alphasem, II, 312

Amadis de Gaula, IJ, 41 (influenced
by prose romances)

Amalvi, I, 465

Amangon, King, IJ, 87-8

Ambrosius (Aurelianus), J, 133, 134,
135. — Il, 46

Amfortas (Anfortas), J, 317, 335, 338,

353

Amite, Amide (=
150

Amours, II, 183

Amustan(s), II, 336

Andreas Capellanus, T, 106, 117

Andret, see Audret

Angharat Law Eurawe, J, 342

Anir, Arthur's son, I, 8, 9

Anjou, I, 316, 321, 332

on aiaughter of Uther Pendragon,

?

Amice?), II, 149-

Index of Subject-Matter

Annales Cambriae, I, 7, 11, 82

Anschow (= Anjou), ft "316, 321

Ansowe (Antschau), I, 317, '321f.

Antichrist, I, 422

Antikonie (Antigone), I, 330

Antor, Arthur’s foster-father, I, 146.
If, 318

Apollo, Tristan’s uncle, I, 493

Apollonius legend, I, 420

Arcade, I, 464

oe (battle of), I, 130, 131,

Argante ve Morgan le Fay), I, 33

Argon, I, 385

Aricia, Arician Diana, II, 76-7

Ariosto, I, 494. — II, 25.

Ark of the Covenant, II, 128-130 (re-
lation to the Holy Grail), 134

Arley-Regis (modern “Ernley”), La-
yamon’s parish, I, 29

Armonie, I, 166

Arnoldus Saxo, I, 330

L’Arit d’Amors, by Chrétien, I, 101

Arthour and Merlin, I, 127

Arthur, English poem, I, 128

Arthur, I, 3-5 (origin of the name),
5 ff. ‘(earliest records concerning),
12f. (in early Italian nomenclature),
144 ff. (in Modena dbas-reliefs), 17 ff.
(in Geoffrey of Monmouth), 24 ff. (in
the chronicles), 32 (birth), 33ff.
(translation to Avalon), 40ff. (in
Welsh literature), 72 (localizations
of his legend), 74 ff. (death and ex-
pected return), 77f. (buried at Gla-
stonbury and later exhumed), 82 ff.
(founds the Round Table), 87f. (his
sword, Excalibur), 92ff. (in Irish
literature), 144f. (birth and child-
hood), 395 (marriage with QGui-
nevere), 396 (his career in the Vul-
gate Merlin), 408 (will not eat
until an adventure has happened).
— II, 2-4 (in Didot-Perceval), 8-
12 (in Perlesvaus), 31 (in Le Che-
valier du Papegau), 35f. (in the
Latin romances), 67, 87-8 (in L’Elu-
cidation), 167, 169, 171, 188-193
(in Eric et Enide), 318 ff. (in Vul-
gate Merlin), 325ff. (in Lancelot
del Lac), 360ff. (in the Queste),
370ff. (in Mort Artu)

Arthur, son of Bicuir, I, 6

Google

421

Arthur and Gorlagon, I, 263, 280.
— II, 35, 179

Arthuret (= Arderydd), I, 131

Arthur map Petr, I, 6

Arthur’s Bed, King, I, 73

aa Cups and Saucers, King, I,

3
soho Tables (Mounds, etc.), King,
7%

, 1d

Arthur's tomb, I, 76, 78

Arthur’s Wives, I, 78

Arthurus (= Arthur), I, 13

Artor (= Arthur), I, 4

Artorius (= Arthur), I, 3, 4

Arturius (= Arthur),

Artu(s) (= Arthur), 1, 17, 57

Artus-Hof, Hebrew Mort Artu,
II, 301-2

Artusius (= Arthur?), I, 12, 13, 14

Ascalon, in Palestine, I, 1

Ascalot (see, also, Escalot), I, 427,
429, 430

Aschmedai (= Asmodeus), I, 133, 149

Asmodeus, I, 133, 149

Atanabos (= Nectanabus), I, 471

Athis et Prophilias, I, 116, 492

Atre Perillos, L’ I, 191

Auctor, see Astor

Audret, I, 169, 489

Augustine, St., missionary to England,

Aunters of Arthur, see Awntyrs of
Arthur at the Terne Wathelyne

Aurelius Ambrosius, I, 135

Aurelius (Conan), I, 3

I, 19, 31, 33, 35, 74, 75, 77, 3 81,
82, 136, 199, 235, 266f., 426, 430,
431, 434, 439, 442, 452, 466 (Lady
of Avalon). — I, 5, 6, 166, 372
Avallonia (= athe I, 199, 266f.
Avalun (= Avalon), I, 33, 34
Avarchide, by Luigi Alamanni, II,
40-41
Avarco (Avaricum), modern Bourges,

Avaron (for Avalon), Vales of, I, 235,
266f.; II, 5

Avowing of Arthur, I, 128

Awntyrs of Arthur at the Terne
Wathelyne, The, I, 127, 441

422

Bade (= Bath), I, 197. — II, 48
eee a I; et 197, 124, 480,
— II, f. (in prose Lan-

ae 361 f in the Queste).

Badon Hill (= Mons Badonis), I, 5,
7. — II, 45-50 (date and place of
the battle)

Balaan, I, 466, 467

Balacane, I, 323, 325, 331

Baladro del Sabio Merlin con sus
Profecias, El, 1, 460, 462, 480, 481,
482

Bal(aa)in, I, 272, 273, 464, 466, 467,
477

Balin and Balan, I, 273

Ban, Lancelot’s father, I, 395, 404
(alleged origin of the name), 473.
— II, 162, 313ff. (in Vulgate Mer-
lin), 324

Banin, II, 324

Barinthus, Celtic sea-god, I, 139

Barlaam and Josaphat, I, 249

Barres, I, 487

Bartsch, Karl, II, 299

Baruc(h) (the), I, 330, 332

Barsaz-Breiz (by T. H. de la Ville-
marqué), I, 39

Battle of Magh Rath, The, I, 270

Baudemagu(s), see Bademagu(s)

Baudouin, I, 331

Baurepaire, I, 225, 226

Beatrice Portinari, I, 106

Beauvais, I, 247

Bede, I, 21, 28, 390. — II. 45, 46,

48, 3

Bedenis, I, 171

Bedivere, I, 49, 180

Beforet, I, 208-210

Beheading Game motif, I, 88, 300. —
II, 245

Bel "Inconnu, Le, I, 109, 123, 291,
311. — II, 62, 71, 9S

Belinus, I, 23, 467

Beloe (lord of), I, 429

Beltane (May-day feasts), I, 85

Benoic, I, 404 (origin of the name).
— If, 5

Benoit te Saint Maure, I, 81

Benoyce, II, 376

Beor, I, 401

Berenton spring, II, 77

Béroul, I, 51, 86, 123, 153, 158, 159,
160-1, 165, 176, 182, 184, 433, 437

Bertholais, Il, 321, 335

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Bertram, I, 115, 118

Beste Glatissante, La (The Barking
Beast), I, 466

Beulan, I, 9

Biket, Robert, I, 64, 66

Bisclavret, I, 5Y, 61, 63. — II, 176,
79

1

Black Book of Caermarthen, The, J,
40-1, 76, 3382

Black Cross, II, 344

Black Hand episode (in the Perceval-
continuations), I, 304

Blaise, LI, 314-5, 320, 323

Blanche fleur, Perceval’s lady-love, I,
225-6, 307, 310, 331, 345

Blanche fleur, Tristan’ 8 ‘mother, I, 118,
157, 166, 186

Blanche Lande, I, 185

Blaunchelound, I, 185

Bled(d)ri (ap Cadivor), I, 286

Bledhericus, I, 156, 285-6,

Bleheris (Bleobleheris), alleged author
of a Grail romance, I, 285f., 291 f.,
473. — II, 88

Bliant, II, 359

Blihos’ Bliheris, IT, 88, 89

Bliocadrans, Perceval’s father, II, 90

Bliocadrans. Prologue (of te Conte del
Graal), I, 300, 311f., 340, 347. —
II, 85, 89-90 (main notice)

Bloie, Guiron's lady-love, II, 24

Blyobleris, Lancelot’s cousin, II, 379

Boccaccio, I, 492-3. — II, 60

Bodel Jean, TL 17

Bodyless hand, I, 419

Potornes (=. Bourges), Claudas’s ca-
pita

roe the Elder, Ban’s brother, I, 397,

Bohort the Younger, I, 384, 401 aol
leged derivation of the name), 402
406, 408, 414f., 418, 421, 423, 428,
133, 442, 446, 473, — II, 162, 319,
326f,, 360, 363. (in the Queste),
369f.

Boiardo, II, 23, 40

Bonaventura, I, 242

Book of Aneurin, The, I, 40

Book of Taliessin, The, 1, 40, 332

Book of the Cavern of Treasures,

I, 36
Bourget (Lake), alleged scene of Ar-
Sar combat with the monster cat,

Index of Subject-Matter

Bran, I, 267, 268, 271

Brandelis, L 801. — II, 88, 94, 172
Bruns [de] Brandalis, “Srandalu
Brandelis} de Gales), 34

Brandins (Brandis, Brenduz) des Illes,
Il, 152, 328

Brangien (= Bringvain), I, ear

Brangoire (and his daughter)
409, 421. II, 342f. (in ae
Lancelot)

Branor le Brun, II, 27-8

Branwen, daughter of Llyr, I, 43, 45,
10, 267, 271

Brehus sans Pitie, IT, 24

Brennius, I, 23, 467

Breri, I, 156-7, 286, 204

Bret, Lt Liores du, I, 372, 480, 487

Bretagne, meaning of the term in the
Middle Ages, I, 60

Breton, meaning ‘of the term in the
Middle Ages, I, 60

Breton Lays. See Marte de France.

Brians des Illes, II, 16, 152

Bricriu, I, 83, 142

Bricriu’s Feast, I, 88

Bringvain, I, 167, 168, 189, 489

Brisane, I, 3

Britain, I, ‘419

Britones, meaning of the term in the
Middle Ages, I, 78-9

Britto (Britus), Ti, 58

Broceliande, forest in Bildang I, 96,
148. — Ii, 323

Bron(s) (Hebron) See, also, under
“Hebron’’. I, 231, 2338, 234-6, 267-8,
374, 877. — "I, 2 (Perceval’s grand-
father), 4, 122, 310f.

Brulan(s), Bralant, T, 386, 466, 467

Brumant, I, 400. — IL, 857

Brun de la Montaigne, II, 286

Brun(s) sans Pitie, II, 328

Brut (Munich), I, 26, 31, 37

Brut, term for “chronicle”, I, 26ff.

Brut d'Angleterre, I, 31

Brut Tystlio, I, 22, 38

Brutus, eponymus of the Britons, I,
19. — II, 51-53 (main notice)

Brutus, first Roman consul, II, 63

Buelt (= Buelty I, 8

Builth (= Buelt), I, 8, 9

Burmaitus?, I, 14

Burmaltus?, I, 14

Burning, as penalty for adultery, I,
437

Google

423

Byblis, I, 119
Byzantine Mass, I, 257 ff.

Caath Seat Catheloys, Cathelois
== cath fil leui(s}?), II, 135

Ca val, Arthur's dog, I, 8, 51

Cadbury, I, 73

Cador, Caradoc’s friend, I, 90-1,

Cador, Duke of Cornwall, TL, 21. 439

Cadwallader, I, 19, 140

Cadwallo, I, 19

Caerfyddin (= Carmarthen), I, 130

Caer Golud, I, 43

Caerleon (= Chester), I, 130, 343. —

360

I, 37,
Caerleon (on Usk), I, 60, 73, 228
Caer Pedryvan I, 43
Caer Rigor, I, 43
Caer Vandwy, I, 43
Caer Wydyr, I, 43
Caesar, Julius, I, 148
Caesarius von Heisterbach (Dialogus
Miraculorum), I, 34, 298
Cai (= Kay), I, 40, 42
Caiaphas, II, 158
Caius (= Kay, at I, 3, 17
Caladbolg (== Excalibur), I, 87
Caleb, I, 388f.
Caledowlch (== eccrine - ie
Calibor(e) (= Excalibur), I, 21, 87
aor (= Excalibur), I, 1 , 87,
34

Calles, If, 346
Calles’ daughter, I, 417

-Calogrenant, I, 95. — II, as ei 365

Calypso-Ulysses motif, II

Cambrein (Cambrin), lord Ps lI, 156

Cambula (= river, Camel), I, 75

Camel, river on which Arthur's last
battle is said to have been fought,

I, 76
Camelford, J, 11
Camelon, I, 11, 73
Camelot, Arthur's capital, I, 73, 300,
415, 427, 434, 465, 473. — II, 23)
164, B41 f. (in prose Lascelot), 360,
870f. (in Mort a aie.
Camille, I, 410, 412 — II, 333
Camlan(n), I, 10, 11, 12, 45, 75, 77
Candace, I, 177
Cantire (= Southwest aay IL, 6
Capalu (Cath Paluc), I, 41, 417
Caradawc, Bran’s father, IL, 267
Caradigan, I, 183. — ll, VW, 72

424

Caradoc (Brisie Braz, Briebraz), I, 15,
89, 90, 91, 300f. — II, 56

Caradoc, King of Wales, ‘IT, 39

Caradoc of Lancarvan, I, 196, 269

Caradoc, the giant, I, 14

Caradoc (Carados, Karados), Livre
de, I, 88ff., 300f. — II, 102

Caradoc (Carados) and the Serpent,
I, 89-91

Carados, I, 14, 89-91. — II, 336f.

Carados and the Dolerose Tor (episode
in the prose Lascelot), I, 14, 410,
446

Carantoc (Saint), I, 10

Carduel (= Carlisle ?), Arthur's cap-
ital, I, 74. — II, 8, 317

Carduino, I, 311

Carlion, I, 228 See Caerleon

Carmelide, II, 319, 335

Carrado (= Caradoc, the giant), I
14, 17

Carradocus, J, 17

Cartelois, IT, 366

Castel del Trespas, II, 362, 333

Castle of Four Stones, II, 344

Castle of Maidens, II, 362

Castel Orgellous, I, 228-9

Cath Paluc (Palug), I, 10, 11, 34, 147

Catraeth (battle), I, 436

Cauldron of Plenty, I, 267, 270 (Caire
Ainsicen)

Cauldron of the Dagda, I, 270, 273

Caval (= Cabal), Arthur's dog, I, 41

Celidoine, I, 386, 392, 397. — II, 310f.

Celtic Origin, The theory of, I, 269-
276

Cercamon, I, 153
Cervantes (Don Quixote), I —
II, 41 (influenced by hetar ro-

mances), 288

Chair of the Sovereign, The, Welsh
poem, I, 40

Chaitivel, If, 178

Chanaan's brothers, II, 367

Chanson de Saisnes, I, 331

Chantari di Lancelotto, Li, I, 449

Chapalu, I, 41,

Chapelizod ere Dublin), I, 164, 185,

Char(rjet(t)e, division of the prose
Lancelot, I, 398, 400f., 406

Charlemagne, I, 441

Chastel des Caroles, I, 397

Chastity Tests, I, 301, 347

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Chateau des Pucelles, I, 494
Chaucer (Troilus and Criseyde), J
417

Chaus, son of Yvain the Bastard, I,
9, 168, 171

Che (= Kay), I, 15, 17

Chelinde, Tristan’s grandmother in
the prose Tristan, I, 492, 493

Chevalier & la Manche, I, 441

Chevalier a l’Espee, Le, Il, 217-218
(analysis)

Chevalier au Cygne, Le, I, 308. —

95

Chevalier du Papegau, Le, Il, 31-
32 (main notice)

Chevaliers as deux espees, Li (ro-
mance), I, 14, 16, 273, 382, 466,
479. — II, 155, 229-237 (analysis)

Chievrefueil, I, 60. — I, 178, 181-2

Chrétien de Troyes, I, 37, 42, 46, 47,
51, 56, 57, 58, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72,
74, 79, 80, 81, 94, 100, 101-128,
(main notice), 146, 150, 151, 155,
156, 157, 161, 162, 184, 189, 193,
195, 196, 197; 200, 201, 208, 204,
205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212-215,
219, 220, 223, 225, 227, 229, 243.
244, 246, 253, 255, 259, 261, 273-
276, 283f., 290, 293f., 296-302, 304,
306, 308, '315, 317- 320, 322f., 326-
331, 333-335, 337- 340, 342-348, 362,
359, 367, 381, 384, 385, 399f., 403,
406-408, 411f,, 415-419, 420, 421)
442, 451, 453, 463, 465, 479, 484,
489, 494, 495. ie 3, 4, 7, 35,
55, "56, 57, 58, 60-74. (in the Mab-
inogian controversy), LO8f. (relation
to Didot-Perceval), 188-193 (Eric
et Enide), 242 (influence in Fergus)

Christ, see Jesus

Christian Origin, Theory of, I, 219-
268

Chronicle of Eusebius-Jerome. See
Eusebius-Jerome.

Chronicle of Mount St. Michael, I, 11

Cistercians (white monks), IT, 367

City of Glass (Vitrea Civitas), Gla-
stonbury, I, 198

Clamadeu(s) (Clamadex), I, 225, 226,
331

Clarion. II, 822

Claris et Laris, II, 264-275 (analysis)

Claudas (de la Terre Deserte), I, ie
400, 405 (origin of the name), 406

Index of Subject-Matter

416, 418, 432. — IT, 102, 162, 321
(in Vulgate Merlin), 324 ff. (in Lan-
celot del Lac)

Claudin, II, 357, 358

Clerk’s Tale, Chaucer's, J, 63, 110

Cliges, by Chrétien de Troyes, I, 67,
100, 101f., 112, 113ff. yoart
116ff. (as Anti-Tristan cp. 205),
155, 193, 211, 212, 220, 247, 248-9,
261, 253, 315, 319

Clinschor, J, 338

Clovis (and variants), I, 405

Colomba, Columba ( aint), a 6, 131

Comandemens Ovide, Les, by Chré-
tien, J, 101-2

Compilation of Rusticiano da Pisa.

Rusticiano da Pisa.

Conal(l), I, 83, 89

Conan (of Brittany), I, 140

Conchobar, I, 52, 83, 98, 173

Condwiramurs, Perceval’s wife in
Wolfram, I, 316, 325, 334

Constant, English king, II, 315

Constantine, Arthur's successor, I, 33,

Constantinus, I, 3

Conte de la Charette (= Lancelot)
by Chrétien de Troyes, I, 67. See
Lancelot.

Conte del Bratt, I, 460, 474, 476,
ie 479, 480-482 (main discussion),

7

Conte del Graal (= Perceval) by
Chrétien and his continuators, I, 67,
219, 229, 292, 308, 342, 399, 410.
— II, 73. See Perceral.

Conversions of Clovis, Constantine,
Edwin, Ethelbert, I, 390

Copper Castle, The, II, 15

Cor, Le, J, 61, 64, 66. — HI, 183

Corbenic (= Corbeni, Corbiniacum),
I, 393f., 402, 407f., 410, 414, 416,
446. — II, 312, 345, 356, 359 (in
prose Lancelot), 360, 367, 375, 376

Corbie, I, 393f.

Cornwall, J, 431

Cotovatre, I, 228

Count Ernol(s), If, 366

Count of Nantes, IT, 71

Crestien de Troyes (= Chrétien de
T.), I, 37. See Chrétien de Troyes

Crestiiens li Gois, I, 302

Cristal et Clarie, Il, 287

Cristan (mistaken for Tristan), I, 177

Google

425

Créne (Krone), Diu, by Heinrich von
dem Tirlin, I, 88, 124, 206, 207,
346 ff. (main discussion)

Cronica de los nobles cavalleros
Tablante de Ricamonte y Tofre,
hijo de Donasson, II, 288, 292

Cronos, I, 277

Crudel, II, 311

ceca Sick Bed, I, 94, 96. —

7)
Cuchull(a)in, I, 52, 77, 83, 84, 89, 94,
, 99, 108, 189, 248, 249,

Cymbeline, I 19

Dabraida, I, 6
Daguenet, II, 329
Dameisele as Petites Mances, La,

I, 229

Danain of Maloaut oi II, 24

Dante, I, 106, 417

Daras, I,

Date of the Battle of Badon Hill.
See Badon Hill.

David, King of Israel, I, 402f. (an-
cestor of Galahad, 492. — I, 360.

David's Sword, the Grail Sword, I,
375, 384f., 391. — IT, 365-6

De Antiquitate Ecclesiae Glasto-
ntensis, I, 12, 262-267, 356

Death of Cuchullin, I, 77

Death of Diarmatd, The, 1,172,174

Decameron (Boccaccio's), I, 65

Deirdre, I, 173

On la Queste etc., by René of Anjou,

41

Demanda (Portuguese), I, 424, 460,
461, 469, 470, 471, 472, 474. 477,
480. See, also, Portuguese Ver-
stons of ‘Arthurian Romances.

Demanda (Spanish), I, 460-2, 469-
473, 475, 480, 481. — I, 138. See,
also, Spanish Versions of Arthur-
tan Romances.

Demetia, I, 134

Denis Pyramus, I, 66

De Hugis Curialium, by Walter
Map. I, 370f.

Deorham, battle of, II, 48, 49

De Ortu Waluuanti, I, 441, — II,
33-38 (main discussion), 57, 157

426

De Principis Instructione, by
Giraldus Cambrensis, I, 264

Désiré, I, 65. — Il, 186

Devwy, I, 43

De Wrake van Ragisel, Dutch
version of La Vengeance de
Raguidel, II, 214-215

Dialogue of Merlin and Taliesin,
I, 130-1

Diana, the goddess, I, 466

Diana, by Montemayor, II, 41

Diane (Diana), I, 150

Diarmaid and Grainne, I, 77,
171-4, 176, 188f.

Dido, I, 119°

Didot-Perceval, I, 235, 243, 246,
264, 282, 284, 396, 409, 420, 426,
428, 430; II, 1-7 (main discussion),
8 (date of the romance), 104-113
(authorship), 136

Dinan, I, 61, 183

Dinas (Castle of), I, 10, 51, 183

Dinasdiron, I, 51f.

Dinas Lidan, I, 182

Dindraithov, I, 10

Disciplina Clericalis, I, 158

Dodinel, II, 344f.

Dolorous Gard, I, 416. — II, 327-9
(in prose Lancelot)

Dolorous Stroke, I, 272-3, 385, 419.
— II, 365 (in the Queste)

Dolorous Tower, II, 337f.

Donnei des Amanz, I, 175

Doon, I, 96. — II, 185

ee Amans, Les, 1,60. — II, 177,
1

Draco Normannicus, by Etienne of
Bec, I, 79

Dream 9 of Rhonabwy, I, 47, 181.

Drest. See Drostan
Dristan (Drystan), L 179, 181
Drostan (= Tristan), I, 178
Druas, II, 346,
Drust. See Drostan
Dublin, I, 492
Duke Calles, II, 347
Duke Ganor, II, 311
Duke of Rochedon, UU, 348
Durandus, G. I, 245

— II, 224-229

Durmart, I, 206.
(analy sis)
Dutch Versions of Arthurian Romances:

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

1. Roman van Walewein door
Penninc en Pieter Vostaert, Ui,
803; 2. Van Maerlant’s Historie
van den Grale and Merlijn’s
Boeck, II, 303; 3. Torec, 11, 303;
4. Ferguut, I, 303-4; 5. Moriaen,
II, 304; 6. ‘Die Wrake van
Ragisel, 11, 304,305; 7. Roman
vun den Riddere metter Mou-
wen, IT, 304; 8. Walewein ende
Keye, Il, 304; 9. A romance dis-
cussed by G. Paris, edited as
part of No. 10; 10. Romans van
Lancelot, Il, 304-5-6; 11. Lodo-
wijck Van Velthem’s Boec van
Coninc Artur, I, 306

Dyfed (Dyved) Southwest Wales, I,

Dyonas, II, 320

Edeyn Oe I, 17

Efrog, I, 130. See Zvrastoc

Eilhart von Oberge, I, 153, 158-161,
165, 176-7, 186

Elaine, I, 438. — II, 2, 319, 324

Eleanor of Castile, II, 283-4

Eleanor of Poitiers, I, 104-5

Elesbaan, I, 388f.

Eleusinian Mysteries, I, 278 ff.

Eliaures, Caradoc’s father, I, 90

Eliazer. See Eliezer

Eliduc, I, 60, 65, 188. — I, 178-9, 182

Eliezer, Galahad’s uncle, I, 408 (orijin
of name), 422, 466. — Tl, 322, 368

Elinaus de Gavalon (Elinaus d’ Kaca-
valon), II, 172

Elizabeth (Helizabel), Telles’s daugh-
ter, II, 149

Elleti, I, 133

Elucidation, L', I, 399. — II, 83-89
(analysis and main notice)

Embreis Guletic (= Ambrosius), I, 1383

Emer, I, 98

Empty Seat (at the Grail table), I
427, etc. See Grail table.

Eneas, I, 107, 111, 119, 158, 410

Enfances Gauvain, a ‘fragmentary
poem on Gawain, I], 38, 57

Enfances Guillaume, I, 116

English metrical romances of the
Arthurian cycle, I, 126ff.

Englynion, I, 182

Engres (Count), I, 113

Enserrement Merlin, ZT’, I, 147

Index of Subject-Matter

Enygeus aa a I, 233-4, 236, 308.
— Il, 136

Korie, king of the Westgoths, II, 70

Evercier, I, 183

paleaseaag! I, 60. — II, 176

Eracle, I i 17

Erec, 1, 17, 37, 46, 70, 79, 109
(etymology of the name), 192, 209,
210, 472. — II, 56, 60f.

Erec, by Hartmann von der Aue, I,
124, 317, 330

Erec et Enide, by Chrétien de Troyes,
I, 58, 100, 101, 102, 103, 108-112,
184, 200, 201, 203, '220, 249, 250,
261, 252, 314, 404, 442, 495. —
II, ‘bd, 58, 69—74 (in the Mabin-
ogian controversy) , 188-193 (an-
alysis)

Krexsaga, Iventsaga, Parszival-
saga, mediaeval Scandinavian
versions of the romances, IJ, 74

Ernley, modern name for Layamon’s
parish, I, 29

Escalan the Tenebrous, I, 416. —

II, 336
Escalibor(e) (= Excalibur), I, 21. See
Excalibur
Escalot (Ascalot), I, 427. — II, 370, 371
Escanor, I, 214, 324. — Il, 275-285
(analy sis)
Esclabor, father of Palamedes, II, 22
Escorant, II, 369
Eselt (= Essylt), I, 183
Hspee as Estranges ranges, L', I,
229, 296f. — LI, 366 (in the Queste)
Espejo de Principes y Caballeros,
, 4i
spine, L’, I, 60, 63. — II, 183
Rssylt (= Tseult ?), I, 179, 180, 183
Estoire del Saint Graal, L’ (Grand
St. Graal), I, 127, 222, 235, 264,
255, 260, 273, 293, 331, 366f., 368,
3, 374ff. (main discussion), 397-
402, 419, 420, 422, 423, 444, 450,
451, 453-5, 457, 459, 460, 461, 463,
466, 467, 474, 475, 478. — II, 128,
134, 150, 157, 158, 159, 161,
169, 308-312 (analysis)
Estoria de Merlin, La, I, 460
magn do Hmperador Vespasia 0,
4
Estregales (Outregales ?), II, 70
Estroite Marche, L’, I, 331
Ethylda, J, 183

Google

427

Etienne of Bec, J, 79
giae, of Isidore of Seville

Eurain, I, 109

Eusebius-Jerome, Chronicle of, IJ, 51f.

Euuain (= Owen), I, 109

Evadeam, a dwarf afterwards a knight,
HI, 324

Evalac, king of Sarras, II, 308

Evangelists (four), symbols for, I, 420.

— II, 366

Kiaugeliun Nicodemi (Gospel of
Nicodemus), I, a ik 243
Eventus (= Yvain), I,
ee (= Euuain?), 7 109. — Il,
cpl

Eweint (= Yvain), I, 21

Excalibur, I, 21, 87 (description of),
434 f. (alleged Persian parallel to
the throwing of E. into the lake),
466. — II, 320 (in Vulgate Merlin),
378 (in Mort u)

Fairie Queene, The, Il, 40 (in-
fluenced by French and Italian
romances)

Fairies’ Fountain, I, 416. — II, 344
(in prose Lancelot)

Fair ae with the Golden Locks,

Fairy Mistress motif, I, 98, 143,
149, 215

Falerin. See Valeriss

Fand, I, 96-99

Faradach hoa Arthur, I, 6

Faunus, I, 466

Febus, II, 24

Fécamp, 1, 280, 287f., 328

Feimurgan, a country, I, 317

Feirefiz, I, 314, 319, 323, 331-3, 338 f.

Fenice, I, 100, 115, 117

Fergus, ruler of r, I, 87, 88

gid one romance, ll, ’ 937-243 (ae
alysis)

Ferreyra Le Vasconcellos, II, 292

Fierabras, I, 37

Fier Baiser motif, I, 212f.

Fine | I, 39

discussion),
, 308, 317, 346, 361, 357,
376, 386, 419. — I, 4, 10, 12, 13,

’

428

Fisher King’s Father, I, 261f., 279f.,
306

Fish-Knight, a sea monster, IJ, 31
Flanders, II, 357
Flavius Josephus. See Josephus.
— aoe (= Bricriu’s Feast),
’
Flegetanis, I, 316
Floriant et Floriete, WU, 254-259
(analysis)
Folie Tristan, La, Berne version,
I, 161, 184
Folie Tristan, La, Oxford version,
J, 160, 161, 162, 176
Forcaire, IT, 309
Forest Desvoiable, II, 353
Forest Perdue, I, 407, 409, 416.
IT, 349 (in prose Lancelot)
Four Ancient Books of Wales, I, 39
Fraisne, Le, I, 63. — II, 176
Francesca, I, 417. See Paolo
Franklin's Tale, Chaucer's I, 65
Freculf, I, 262
Frederick II, German emperor, II, 21
French Arthurian Romances in Verse:
1. Eric et Enide, IT, 188-193;
2. Cliges, I, 113ff.; 3. Lancelot
(Conte dela Charrete), 1, 193ff.;
4. Thomas’s Tristan, I, 122 ff.
and I, 157ff.; 5. Yoain (Che-
valier au Lion) J, 95-6; 6. Per-
ceval (Conte del Graal), \, 223ff.
and J, 290ff.; 7. Zé Biaus Des-
couneus (Le Bel Inconnu), IT,
194-198; 8. Robert de Boron's
Joseph and Merlin, I, 230ff.;
9.Pseudo-W auchier’s continuation
of Chrétien’s Perceval, I, 290ff.
and II, 198-202; 10. Further contin-
uation by Wauchier and others,
I, 290f., 302-8, II, 202; 11. Be-
roul’s Tristan, I, 158, note 7;
12. Merauyis de Portlesguesz,
If, 202-208; 13. La Vengeance
de Ragwuidel, Il, 208-215; 14. La
Mule sanz Frain, If, 215-217;
15. Le Chevalier a l’Espee, II,
217-218; 16. Gliglois II, 218-
220; 17. Yder, If, 220-224; 18.
Mannessier’s continuation of
Chrétien's Perceval, I, 304f.;
19. Gerbert’s continuation, J,
303-8; 20. Durmart, II, 224 229;
21. Li Chevaliers as Deus

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Espees, II, 229-237; 22. Fergus,.
II, 237-243; 23. Husdaut, UW,
243-6; 24. Les Mervelles de
Rigomer, IT, 246-254; 25. Flor-
tant et Floriete, II, 254-259;
26. Li Atres Perillox, II, 259-
264; 27. Claris eé Laris, HI,
264-275; 28. Sone de Nausuy,
I, 350-3; 29. Escanor, IJ, 275-
285; 30. Fragments of a romance
of about 1325, author unknown,
dialect-champagne, edited by
Langlois, II, 285; 31. Méliador,
IT, 286; Jaufre, Il, 287-8.

Frimutel, I, 317

Froille d’Alemaigne, II, 321, 358, 377

Froissart, Jean. See Méliador

Frollo (Frolle), I, 439, 440

Fulco, Count of Anjou, I, 321

Gaelic Ballads with Arthurian meoti/s,.

J, 92

Gaheries (Gaheriet), J, 432. Il,
347f. (in prose Lancelot), 362, 371,
372, 373, 375, 377

Gahmuret (Gamuret), I, 314, 317, 319,
321, 322, 325, 330, 332f.

Gaimar, Geffrei, I, 24. 37, 176

Galaad (= Galahad), I, 14, 422

Galafres (Calafres), and variants, I,
389. See Kalafes Alphasan

Galagandriez, J, 208

Galahad, I, 215, 260, 335, 300, 375ff.,
- 395 ff., 401, 412, ‘420-5, 428, 438,
446-7, 466, 468, 471, 491, 494. —
IJ, 113, 145-149, 349 (in prose
Lancelot), 356, 360ff. (in the
Queste)

Galahad and Perceval, I, 468, 475.
— IJ, 145-149

Galasso (= Galahad), I, 14

Galatea, by Cervantes, II, 41

Se sy nephew of ’Galehaut, II,

9

339

Galehaut (Galehot), I, 398-401, 410,
417, 418, 422, 428,447. — II, 30,
$29 ff. (in prose Lancelot), 379

Galehaut, division of the prose
Lancelot, T, 398-401, 411, 416, 417,
473. — Il, 143-4

Galeran de ’ Bretagne, I, 42

Gales (= Wales), I, 422. — I, 172, 340

Galeshin, IT, 336, 337

Index of Subject-Maitter

Galfridus Artur (= Geoffrey of Mon-
mouth), I, 19

Galganus (= Gawain?), I, 13

Galinde(s), II, 342

Galinguefort (= Wallingford), I, 100

Gallan, Garlan, I, 466

Gallomhai (= Gawain), J, 92

Galloway, I, 21

Galobrus de la Vermeille Lande,
Perceval’s cousin, II, 152

Galobrutes (Galo + Brutus), I, 172

Galoc(h)e(s), Grail castle in ‘Sone de
Nausay, I, f.

Galuron, I, 15

Galvaginus (= Gawain?), I, 14, 17

Galvanus (= Gawain?), I, 12, 13, 14

Galvarius, I, 14 ,

Gandin, IJ, 321f.

Ganieda, Merlin’s sister, I, 136, 138,
140, 143

Gannes, I, 406. — IT. 358, 376

Gaucher de Dourdan (= Wauchier
de Denain), I, 58, 290. See
Wauchier de Denain.

Gaugain (= Gawain). I, 21

Gaul, II, 357, 376

Gautier d’Arras, I, 66, 117, 122

Gautier de Doulens (= Wauchier de
Denain), I, 290

Gautier de Montbéliard, I, 221-3

Gauvain, French form of “Gawain”,
I, 18, 21

Gawain et l’échiquier, I, 407

Gawain, I, 12ff. (alleged tomb in
Wales and name in early Italian
records), 19, 21 (origin of name.
cp., too, 41), 28, 87, 96, 124, 128,
169, 172, 192, 194, 209, 210, 212,
213, 229f. (adventures in Chrétien’s
Perceval), 230, 248-50 (preeminence
in the romances), 285 (alleged
original Grail hero), 296f. (at the
Grail castle in Pseudo-Wauchier),
338 (contrasted with Perceval), 346,
349 (wins the Grail), 407 (at Grail
castle in the Lancelot). — II, 12f.
(in the Perlesvaus), 36f. (in the
Latin romances), 57, 67, 91-103
Miss Weston’s Gaw ain-Complex),
? (poems in which Gawain is the
hero), 169, 171, 319f. (in Vulgate
Merlin), 328 ff. (in prose Lancelot),
360f. (in the Qseste), 370f. (in
Mort Artu)

Google

429

Gawain and the Green Knight,
Sir, I, 74, 88, 125-7, 153, 250, 300
— II, 163

Gawain-Complex, Miss Weston’s, II,
91-103 .

Gawain et Humbaut. See Hunbaut.

Gaydon, J, 442, 453

aun I, 208, 404

Geoffrey of Monmouth, I, 8, 12, 18,
17-23 (main discussion), 24-6, 31,
33-6, 38, 41, 57, 61, 75, 76, 77, 79,
81-2, 87, 103-4, 113, 119, 128-132,
134-6, 140-1, 143-4, 152-4, 202, 204,
246, 248-9, 262, 265, 372, 396. 426,
430, 434, 439, 440, 442, 467. —
IJ, 5, 29, 38, 100

lesen I, 3 (etymology of the name).
— IJ, 71

Geraint (— Geraint and Enid),
J, 46, 70, 108, 345.. — me 59 ff.
Geraint (Welsh tale), I — I,

59f., 73

Geraint, son of Erbin, Welsh poem,
I, 40, 343f.
Gerard of Amiens, IT, 275 ff. (Escanor)
Gerbert, continuator of Chrétien's
Perceval, I, 162, 184, 257, nag
300, 305-8 (main discussion), 399 :
451, 465. — II, 128, 163
German Versions of Arthurian Ro-
mances:
1. von Oberge’s Trétstrant, II,
295; 2. von Aue’s Eree, II, 295;
3. Iwein, ¥, 295; 4. von Zatzik-
hoven’s Lancelot, I, 124, 208f.;
5. von Eschenbach’s Parzival,
I, 124; 6. von Grafenberg’s
Wigalois, II, 197-8, 295; 7. von
Strassburg’s Tristan, 1, 162;
8. Wolfram’s Titurel, Il, 295:
9: von Tirlin’s Diu Crna
(Krone), I, 124; 10. Manuel und
Amande, II, 295-6; 11. Daniel
von dem Blihenden Tal, etc..
II, 296; 12. von Tirheim’s
Tr istan, II, 296-7; 13. Clées,
II, 297; 14. Segremors, IL,
297-8; 15. Wigamur, II, 298-9:
16. Edolanz, \I, 299; 17. Garel
vom bliihenden Tal, etc., II, 299;
18. Tandarcis und Flordibel,
II, 299; 19. Meleranz von dem
Pleier, II, 299; 20. Der jungere
Titurel, Il, 299; 21. Lohengrin,

430

II, 299; 22. von Scharfenberg,
II, 299-300; 23. von Freiberg’s
Tristan, If, 300; 24. Gauritel
von Muntabel, II, 300; 25. Par-
zifal, II, 300; 26. Merlin by von
Scharfenberg, II, 300; 27. Prose
version of Lascelot, Il, 300;
28. Prose redaction of No. 27, If,
301; 29. Poetical version of No.
27, II, 301; 30. Tristan und
Isolde, II, 301; 31. Wigoleiss
com Rade, 11, 301; 32. A German
poem based on Wirnt’s Wigalois
and written in Hebrew, II, 301.
Germanus (Saint), I, 9
Geron der Adelige, II, 25
Gerontius (— Geraint), I, 3
Gerusalemme Liberata, by Tasso,
II, 41 (modelled after the Avarchide)
ee of Tilbury (Otia Imperialia),
34

Gesta Pilati, I, 238, 239, 241, 298.
I, 128

Geste des Bretons (= Wace’s Brut),
Gif(f)let (Gifles), I, 229, 434, 436,
466 2, 378

Gildas, I, 4-8, 21, 135, 197-8. — II,
50

45-6, 49,

Gile de Flagi, I, 451

sia same as Galaad (Galahad),
, 4:

Gillaume Le Clere, IT, 238-243 (Fergus)

Giraldus Cambrensis, I, 23, 70, 77-9,
85, See 200, 203, 264, 370. —

0

Girart de Roussillon, 1, 405, 410
Glais (= Glast?), Gais, Gals, If, 171,

Glast(e)ing, I, 195, 198

Glastigberi (Glastinbiry, Glastiberia,
Glastonia) — Glastonbury, I, 198-9

Glastonbury, I, 12, 78, 81, 197-200,
262-7 (Grail traditions), 280, 287,
366, 431, 437, 441, 452. — Ll, 165-
172 (relation to Perlesvaus)

Glastonbury, names of its founder
and his brothers, I, 198

Gleguissing, I, 132

Glewlwyd Gavaelvawr, one of Arthur's
porters, I, 40, 49

Gliglois, I, 124. — II, 218-220
(analysis)

Glocedon, IH, 344

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Glynn Dallwyr, I,

11
Godefroi de Bouillon (and his brothers),
: 321

, 308,

Godefroi de Lagny (Leigni), I, 195,
197, 201. — II, 84

st Son Gawr, Guinevere’s father.
, 44

Gohorz, I, 225

Golagrus and Gawain, I, 128

Golden Circlet, The, II, 15

Golyddan, a bard, I, 44

Gomeret, I, 314

Gonosor (corruption of Nabugodonosor),

Good Fisher, The, I, 237, 243, 244.
— II, 135

Goon Desert, J, 304, 346

Gorlois, I, 21, 135, 145

Gormond, I,

Gornemant (Gornemanz) of Gohorz,
I, 225-7, 281, 338

Gorre (Goirre), I, 196-7, 201-2, 415,
446. — II, 336, 339f. (in prose
Lancelot)

Gorvain Cadrut, I, 51

Gorvenal, I, 166

Gottfried von Strassburg, I, 55, 124.
157, 158, 162, 166, 186

Gower, I, 201

Graal. See Grail

Gradlon Mur (= Graelent), I, 65

Graelent, I, 65. — II, 185-6

Grail, I, 72, 92, 145, 146, 214, 219-
362 (main discussion), 234 (ety-
mology of the word. Cp. 254f.),
327 (as a stone. Cp. 335). — H, 2f.
_ Didot-Perceval), 11f. (in

erlesvaus), 88f. (in Klucidation),
96, 108, 128-130, 134, 308ff. (in
L' Estoire del Satnt Graal), 322,
345f. (in prose Lancelot), 361f. (in
the Queste), 370

Grail castle, II, 164, 345, 367, 368

Grail-keeper, II, 134-5 (list of grail-
keepers)

Grail spear, I, 267f., 260, 271-4
(alleged Irish parallel), 283 (alleged
phallic symbol), 287-289, °
Pseudo- Wauchier), 848 (in the
ee: a (in Sone de Nausay).

Grail sword, I, 229, 274f. (alleged
Irish parallel), 296f., 307f., 348 (in
the Créne). See, too, Espee as

Index of Subject-Matter

Estranges ranges and King
David's sword. II, 13

Grail table, I, 86. — Il, 106, 311 (in
L'Estoire del Saint Graal), 317

Grand St. Graal. See Estotre del
Saint Graal.

Grateful Lion, I, 420

Great fool motif, I, 247-8, 251, 269

Greek fire, II, 37

Gregorius, by Hartmann von Aue,

’

Gregory, legend of Pope, I, 441, 465.
— I, 38

Gregory of Tours, I, 390

Grettissaga, I, 187

Griffith, brother of Caradoc, II, 35

Griffon des Malx Pas, II, 344

Grimaud, I, 370

Gringalet, famous horse, IT, 322

Grisandole, I, 147, 148, 149. — II,
321 (in Vulgate Merlin)

Guallia (Wales), I, 41

Gualo, eponymus of Wales, I, 41

Guanhamara (= Guinevere), I, 19

Guenet (= Vannes), I, 404

Guenloie (= Guinloie), I, 14, 16

eae Camlann (battle of Camlann),
, 1

Guennolous, King of Scotland, I, 136

Cue i Guinevere), I, 197

Guerrehes, 413, 432. — TI, 333,
346 (in prose Lancelot), 374

Guido Guinicelli, I, 106
Guigambresil, I, 229

Guigamor (Guiagamar), I, 53
Guigemar, 1, 53-63, 59, 110
Guilhomar (= Guigemar), I, 53
Guillaume d’Angleterre, by Chrétien,

Guillaume d’Orange cycle, I, 466
Guillaume le Breton, I, 451

Guimier, Caradoc’s chaste wife, I, 301

Guinas de Blakestan, LI, 331

Guinebout, I, 395. — I, 320
Guinevere, I, 19 (her adultery), 33,
43f. (in Welsh literature), 77
grave in Scotland), 77f. (buried at
Glastonbury and later exhumed),
113, 122, 147, 192, 193, 194, 196 ff.
ree pe bean ), 201, 202,
— II, 19 (in Perlesoaus),
147, 150, 161, 168, 319 ff. (in Vu
gate Merlin), g27f. (in prose Lan-

Google

431

celot), 360f. (in the Queste), 370ff.
(in Mort Artu)

Guinevere, the false, I, 401, 412, 416,
437, — II, 319 (in Vulgate Merlin),
321, 334 f. (in prose Lancelot)

Guingamor, I, 64, 66. — II, 184-5

Guinglain (== Bel Inconnn), L 291

Guinloie (= Guenloie), I, 14

Guinor, wife of Caradoc Briebraz, I,
89

Guiomar (Guionmar), I, 53, 444

Guiot, poet of unknown origin, I, 319 f.

Guiot de Provins, I, 318-320, 327

Guiron le Courtois, TL, 23, o4

Guiron le courtots, I, 37, 372. —
If, 21

Guivret le Petit, I, 110

Gumbelauc, lI, 183

Gundebald, IT, 35-6

ah ere (Murgalan(t]), a pagan king,

, 12

vara ia Gornemanz, Gorne-
mant),

Gwaldkvnet et =Gwalchmai), Gawain’s
name in Welsh, I, 21, 41 (etymo-
logy of name), 182, 192

Gwawl, I, 303

Gwenddoleu ap Ceidio, I, 131

Gwendolen, Arthur’s wife in the Latin
romances, IJ, 37

Gwendoloena, Merlin’s: wife, I, 137

Gwenhwyrach, Guinevere’s ‘sister, I,
44

Gwenhwyvar (= Guinevere), I, 44, 78

Gwgan, I, 76

Gwyar, father of Gwalchmei (= Ga-
wain), I, 41

Gwyddawe, son of Menestyr, I, 42

Gwynedd, northwest Wales, I, 74, 404

Gwynnhyvar, I, 10

Gwythyr, I, 76

Gyrone il Cortese, II, 25

Hagodabran, IT, 333

Hartmann von Aue, I, 124, 317, 327,
330, 337. — II, 64

Havelo(c)k, I, 25, 64. — II, 38, 183

Hebron (Bron), I, 146, 2338, — II,
130-133 (origin of name). See Bron.

Hector, I, 401, 407, 414, 446, 491. —
II, 322 (in Vulgate Merlin), 331 f.
in prose Lancelot), 364, 367, 370f.
in Mort Arte)

432

Heinrich von dem Tirlin. See Créne.
I, 347, 349f. — II, 100-1

Heinrich von Freiberg (Freyberg), I,
161

Heinrich von Veldeke, J, 328

Helain le Blanc, Emperor of Constan-
tinople, II, 343

Helaine, Ban's consort, II, 321

Helaine sans Peur, I 332

Helie (Helye) de Bor(rjon, or Pseudo-
Helie, I, 477, 479, 480, 486, 487,
496. — ll, 21

Helinand(us) of Froidmont, I, 247, 254,
255, 450, 451

Hellin de Wavrin, II, 156

Helyes of Toulouse, Il, 334

Hengist (Hengest), 1, 4, 9, 21, 61, 430.
— II, 315

Hen-Moniu, I, 185

"Henry of Huntingdon (Historia Ang-
lorum), I, 11, 18

Henwen, marvellous son, I, 10

eh, Welsh name for Snowdon, I,
1

Hermann of Thitiringen, J, 318, 321

Hermann of Tournai, I, 10

Herminones oe II, 52

Herod, I, 46

Herodotus, I, 187

Herzeloyde (=

Hiderus (= Ider, Yder), I, 17, — HI, 67

Hippocrates, I, 213, 391 (fabliau)

Histoire de Fulk- Fitewarin, II, 171

Historia dos Cavalleiros da Mesa
Redonda eda Demanda do Santo
Graal, A, = Portuguese De-
manda, 1 "469

Historia Mertadoci and De Ortx
Waluuanitt, I, 16, 263, 311, 832,
358, 465, 492. — II, 88-8 (main
discussion), 157,

Histori von herren Tristan und
a nee Isalden von Iriande,

Hoel, King of Brittany, I, 23

Hoel of Carhaix, I, 170, 186

Hoimenen (= Harmony), I, 185

Holinshed, I, 35

Holy Ghost, II, 309

Holy Grail. See “Grail”, above

Holy Grail, by Lovelich, I, 127

Hongrefort, Tl, , 344

die (et Rimenhild), I, 64, 66, 126,

Google

== Herselot), I, 314, 382f.

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

ya , 363
Howel Dda, ’Welsh prince I, 45
Huchown of the Awle Ryale, J, 126
Hue (Hugh) of Rotelande, I, 247, 871
Hugh of St. Victor, I, 242
Heae (Hugues) de Morville, I, 207,

Hunbaut ( ere ef Humbaut,
Humbaut), II, 243-6 (analysis)
arn the White Stag mots, I,

1
Hupe et l’Aronde, La, by Chrétien,

, 101
See Merlin of the

Huth-Merlin.
Pseudo-Robert-de-Boron cycle.

Iblis, I, 209, 210, 215
wae d ier, Yder), Arthurian knight,

iene. Arthur’s mother, I, 135, 145

Ignaure, I, 64. — II, 183

Iliad, II, 40-1 (Arthurizing of it in
Avarchide)

Ille d’Or, I, 123

Ile et aleron, I, 66

Ile Plenteureusse (Bounteous Isle),

II,. 16
Impaled human heads ny, I, 109
Imperious Host mo#s/, IT, 2
epoca imaginary voyages, I, 190,

Incest motif, I, 441
Ingaevones, Inguo, II, 52
me es (wife of Philip Augustus),

In Gilla Decaér, an ries tale, I, 81

Innocent III (Pope), I,

Insula Pomorum (Isle vy Apples), Cel-
tic Elysium, J, 188, 199

Iona, I, 6

Ipomedon, I, 212, 247, 371f.

Isaie (Ysaye) le Triste, II, 25-6

Isdernus ex der ?), I, 14, 17

Iselt (= Iseult), I, 14, 18:

Iseult of Brittany (Iseult of the White
Hands), I, 170, 171, 180, 187, 188,
488, 493

Iseult of Cornwall, I, 38, 60, 77, 118,
152 ff., 204, he 498

Iseut (= Iseult), I , 14, 188

Ishild, I, 183

a af Apples (Celtic Elysium), I, 79,

Index of Subject-Matter

Isle of Maidens, I, 96

Israelites in the Wilderness, IJ, 133-4

Istaevones, Istio, IT, 52

Iswalda, I, 183

Italian Versions of Arthurian Rom-

ances:

1. Tristano 2. La Tavola Rt-
tonda o L'Istoria di Tristano
8. Il Febusso e Breusso 4. La
Morte di Tristano 5. La Vita
adi Merlino con le sue profezie,
— see II, 293-4; 6. Li Chan-
tari di Lancelloto, 1, 449; 7.
Libro de battaglie di Tristano.
II, 294; 8. Girone il Cortese
9. Gyrone il Cortese 10. Due
libri dell’ opere magnanime dei
due Tristani, — II, 289-291,
204; 11. L'tlustre et famosa
istoria di Lancillotto del Lago
etc., II, 294

Ital 40. influence of prose romances on,

Iter ad Paaae I, La

Ivain, Iwain (= Yvain), I , 95. — TT,
303. See, also, Yrain

Ivor, the king’ 8 huntsman, II, 35

Iwein, by Hartmann von der Aue,

, 124
Iweret, J, 208, 209, 212

Jacobus de Voragine, I, 361

Jaufre, IT, 287-8 (analysis)

Jean de Nesle, IT, 156

Jehan (Author of Les Mervelles de
Rigomer), \I, 246

Jephthah, I, 422

Jeschute, I, 333, 334

Jesus (Christ), I, 230-241, 243, 257,
260-1, 852, 381, 891, 403, 421, 422.
— Ii, 4, 119, 120, 133, 158, 159,
164, 308, 313, 363, 366, 868.

Jocaste, II, 74, 78-9

Jocelyn of Furness, I, 141, 388

Johan de Neele, II, 156

Johfrit de Liez, 1, 208, 211

John of Glastonbury, II, 170

Joie de la Cour, episode in rec,
I, 109, 110. — I, 62, 68

Joseph, son of Jacob, I, "422

Jose rs by Robert de Boron, I, 219-

230-7 (analysis), 241, 243, 246,

363 265, gt 282, 297, "298, 308,
856, 366f., 375, 381, 386 f., 391,

Belperia, Exgngungsreihe: 9.

Google

433

419, 421, 458, 456f., 461, 474. —
II, 5, 6, 104f. (relation to Didot-
Perceval), 114 ff. (discussion of date,
etc.), 129ff., 163, 315

Joseph of Arimathea, J, 127, 146, 230-
241, 264, 262-3, 265-7, 287, 297,
Bb1f., 355f., 375, 379, 382, 384-7,
891f., 397, 419, 492. — II, if, 17,
158, 160, 169, 170, 308f. (in Zstoire
del Saint Graal), 314-5, 340, 344,

860

Fosephe(s), I, 377, 379f., 382, 384,

58-9, 160, 161, 169,

208 f. "(i L'Estoire del Saint
Graal), 368-9 (in the Queste)

Josephus, the historian, I, 379. — II,
168-9, 160, 161

Josue, II, 312

Joyous Gard, I, 427, 430, 436, 473,
494. — II, 329f. (in prose Lan-
celut), 874f. (in Mort Arts)

Judas, 1, 230, 233

Juvenal, I, 3

Kaaba, the, I, 335

Kahares (= Guerehes) I, 300

Kahe(r)din, Tristan’s Geass
I, 170, 17 1, 180, 489

Kalafes Alphasan, and variants, I,
389 f.

Kamlan (= Camlan), J, 44.

Kanelangres, Tristan’s father, I, 186

Karados. See Caradoc, Carados.

Kardeiz, son of Perceval, I, 338

Karnahkarnanz, I,

Karole as Gaians (= Stonehenge), I,
62, 135

Karrenritter, IT, 71

Karyet (= Gaheriet), J, 209

Kay, Arthur’s seneschal, I, 15, 41, 49,
50, 153, 180, 193, 194, 196, 224-5,
228, 340, 345. — Il, 19, ‘85, 67,
818 (in Vulgate Merlin), 327, 834,
339f. (in prose Lancelot)

Keating, I, 274

Kei (= Kay), I, 3 (etymology of name)

Kelliwic (= Bodmin), I, 10, 44, 75

Kentigern, Life of St., I, 141, 142

Kernyw (= Cornwall), I 10

Kilmarch (Kilmarth), I, 184

King Agrippe’s daughter, II, 342

King Amans’s daughter, II, 365

King Flualis, II, 323

King Henry, II, 369

28

434

King of the Chastel Mortel, IT, 15, 16
King of the Hundred Knights, II, 833,

856
King Orcan, IT, 311
Knight of the Surcoat. The, II, 37
Knights Templars, I, 335, 421
Knights who end life in religious
retirement, I, 442
Kotwaladyr Vv endigeit, I, 44
Krone, Diu. See Crone.
Kulhwch and Olwen, J, 8, 10, 40-2,
rtf 48-51, 70, 73, 82, 168, 203, 3-45,
6

Kyot (Kiot), alleged source of Wolf-
ram's Parzival, I, 124, 264, 306,
815f., 318-330, 399

Label, IT, 310

La Bele Garde (La Bele Prise), IT, 338

Labraid, I, 97, 98

La Calprendde, II, 4t

Lac, Erec’s father, II, 23, 24

La Chievre See Li Kievres

Lady of Galvoie, II, 347f.

Lady of Malehaut, II, 830, 333, 339

Lady of Nohaut, The, II, 327

Lady of Roestoc, II, 331, 347

Lady of the Fountain ‘(called mr
Owein, or Owen and Lunet), I
70, 71, 343f.

Lady of the Lake, I, 323, 326 ff. iz
prose Lancelot),

Lady of the Pavilion, I, 413

Lady of the White Castle, IT, 336

Lihelin (= Llewellyn), I, 333, 340f.

Lailoken (Lailocen), J, 141, 142.

Lais (bretons), I, 52-66 (main dis-
cussion)

Lait Hardi, Le, I, 463

Lake Marchoise, I, 364

Lalocan, I, 141

Laldcc, I, 141

Laloecen '(Laloicen), T, 141

Lambegue(s), 326, 343, 344

Lambor, I, 385

Lamorat, if 491, 492. — II, 23,

Langarote, 1, 460

Lancelin, I, 193

Lancelot, I, 28, 77, 192-216 (main
discussion), 348, 378, 383, . 395ff.,
418, 472, 473, 476. — II, 14 (Grail
quest in Perlesvaus), 26, 161, 166-
7, 168, 312 (his grandfather), 321,
324-359 (in Lancelot, prose Vulgate

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Cycle), 360ff. (in the Queste). 370ff.
(in Mort Arte)

Lancelot (— Conte de la Charette),
by Chrétien de Troyes, I, 67, 101,
102, 107, 112, 120, 156, 193-5 (ana-
lysis), 201f., 210, 213, 220, 249,
250, 498. — II, 107, 162

Lancelot (del Lac), prose romance,
I, 127, 160-1, 206-6, 215-6, 260,
273, 293, 363-371, 374, 378, 398df.,,
397 ff. (main discussion), 423-4, 426,
429, 430, 432, 433, 438-9, 441, 443,
446-7, 450-3, 455-7, 459, 463-4, 466,
468, 469-471, 475-6, 478, 483-4, 486,
488, 491, 494-5. — Il, 139, 141-3,
144, 145, 161, 162, 170, 324-359
(analysis

Lancelot, Dutch poem, J, 125, 331

Lancelot of the Laik, I, 74, 127

Lancien (Lantien, Lanthien, Lantyan),

1

J, 184f.

Lanval, J, 60, 65, 128. — II, 176-7,
179-180

Lanzelet, by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven,
I, 124, 204, 206-7, 208 ff. (ana lysi),
21 1, 214-5, 871f., 403-6, 45

, 55
Las Profecias del sabio Merlin, II,
29

Latin romances. See Historia Me-
riadoci, and De Ortu Waluuanti.

Latini, Brunetto, I, 488, 496

Laudine, I, 9a, 96, 100. — II, 74, 75,
77-8

Lausanne (Lake) = Lake Geneva,
alleged scene of Arthur’s combat
with the monster cat, I, 42, 396.
— II, 323 (in Vulgate Merlin)

Laustic, 1, 59, 62, 63. — II, 178

La Vengeance de Raguidel. See
Venyeance de Raguidel

Lawnsclot (= Lancelot), I, 192

Layamon, I, 25, 27, 28-36 (main dis-
cussion), 79, 81, 84, 85, 86, 396,
409, 426, 435, 440, 442

Lays. See Narrative Lays, and see
under individual names

Lear (Leir), I, 19, 32, 35

Lecheor, If, 183

Le Chevalier Sans Peur, Meliadus's
rival, Il, 22

Le comte et la fee, I, 98

Le Conte du Papegaul qué con-
tent le premieres Aventures quit

Index of Subject-Matter

auindrent au bon Roy Artus,

I], 31

Leodegan, IJ, 819f. 335

Leonois, II, 2

Le Riche Sodoier, II, 96

Le Romans de la Dame a la Ly-
corne et du Biau Chevalier au
Lyon, Il, 287

Li Atres Perillox (Li Atre Peritlos),
II, 259-264 (analysis)

Liban, I, 97

eee Merlini, I, 134, 135. — II,

Li Biaus Descouneus (= Le Bel
Inconnu), I, 123, 127, 218, 408.
— If; 71, 101- 2, 194-8 (analysis)

Li Cheualiers Mesfais, II, 809

Li Chevaliers as Deus Es pees. See
Chevaliers as Deus Espees, Li.

Liddamus, I, 315

Li Kievres, J, 156

Limors, I, 208

Lionel, I, '401f., 406, 415f., 418, 442,
446. — IY, 826f. (in prose Lan-
celot), 360f. (in the Queste), 370f.
(in Mort Artu)

Lis (Chateau de), I, 61, 276

Listinois, I, 466. See. too, Pelles.

Liuro de Jusep Aba one I, 460

Livre d'Artus (Vulgate), I, 147, 314
(of MS. 337, Bibl. Nat.), "331, 443,
444, 445

Lioro da Destruicao de Jerusalem,
J, 460. Same as Estoria do Em-
ner Ves pasiano.

Livy, I, 21

Llachau, Llacheu (= Lohot), Arthur's
son, I. 41, 192

Lislogan, [, 141

Lleon Gawr, I, 130

Lioch Llawwynnyawe, a warrior of
Arthur's, I, 41

DLludd and Llevelys, 1, 131

Liwch (= Lloch), [. 41

Llyr (= Lear), I 44, 46

Locrin(e). J, 19, 21

Loeg. I, 97, 97

Loegaire, I, 83. 89

Loegria (Welsh name for England in
Latinized form), I, 21

ag Loonois), I, 166, 179

Logres, I. 351, 381, 885, 430, 466,
473, 480, 489, 490. — If, 3, 22,
8214. -(in Vulgate Merlin), 835,

Google

435

359, 360f. (in the Queste), 375,
876f. (in Mort Artu)

Lohengrin, I, 336, 338, 339 (origin
of name)

Lohot, Arthur’s son, I, 41, 192, 8396,
406. — IT, 19, 167

Longinus, I, 257, 272, 289

Loonois, I, 179, 180

Lorgres, I, 351. See Logres.

Lotih), Gawain’s father, I, 21, 41, 208,
209, 464. — II. 36, ‘821

Lothe, King of Orcanie, IT, 318

Louvezerp, I, 468

Luacra, I, 98

Lucan, Arthur’s butler, I, 436. — IT,
96, 878

Luce(s) de Gaut (Gant, Gast, etc.),
, 486, 487

Luces, emperor of Rome, II, 323

Lug, J, 273 (spear of), 274 (sword of)

Luin of Celtchar, I, 271, 272

Lunete, I, 95, 96, 100

Lutté de Tristan (episode in Ger-
bert), I, 292

Mabinogion, J, 41-52 (main discus-
sion), 70, 71-2, 73-6, 85, 131, 181,
342 f., 436

Mabinogian Controversy, The, IT, 59-74

Mabonagrain, I, 109. — II, "69, 71
Mabuz, I, 209
Macpherson, J. (Ossian), I, 39

Madoc, I, 14, 353
Mador de la Porte, I, 429. — I, 349,
873

Maduit, II, 350

Maelgwn, I, 21

Maelwys, I, 197

Magic Balm. I, 307

Magic Chessboard, I, 302, 395

Mag Mell, ], 97, 98

ee (= Mehwas), JT, 200, 201,
20

Maid of Ascalot (Escalot), I, 427, 429,
430, 433f.. 438, 442. — II, S71 ff.
(in Mort Artu)

Maidenland, Celtic Otherworld, I, 208

Maidens’ Castle, II, 37

Maimed King, I, 282, 375, 377, 383f.,
407, 425. -- II, 148, 312 (in L'Esto-

tre), 366, 368. See, also, under Pellinor.

Maines (Moyne), II, 315

Malduc, I, 210

Malory, Sir Thomas, I, 40, 151, 201,

436

206, 207, 422, 438, 447, 448, 449,
462-3, 465-8. — II, 22, 54, 55, 165

Malpas, I, 184f.

Malruc (the Red), I, 344

Malvasius (= Melwas?), I, 197

Manannan mac Lir, I, 97- 99, 281

Manawyddan, the son of Liyr, I.
45-6

Manessier (Manecier), I, 257, 292-4,
299, 304-5, 307, 346-8, 372, 399,
451. — II, 163, 224

Map, Walter, I, 368-373 (main dis-
cussion), 487. — II, 369, 379

Marc (Mark), Tristan’s uncle, I, 161,
166 ff., 204, 458, 472, 473, 490, 491,
495

March. I, 76

Marculf, St., I, 394

Mardoc (= Madoc? Mariadok?), I. 14,

17

Marganor, II, 331-2

Margondes and Melyadus, IJ, 342

Mariadoc, Mariadok, I, 14, 16, 436

Mariales, IJ, 350

Marianus, Scotus, IT, 48

Marie de France, I, 52-3, 55-6, 58-66,
128, 157. — II, 175-182 (her twelve

lays)
Marie of Champagne, IJ, 104-5, 195
Mariolatry, I, 106
Mark’s Gate, I, 184f.
Marot, Clément, II, 40

Marque de Rome, 1, 115

Martin (of Rochester), I, 29, 30, 37,
144, 396. — IT, 11

Mary, Abbess of Shaftesbury, I, 56

Marzin (= Merlin), I, 129

Matabrune, I, 353

Math, son of Mathonwy, I, 46-6, 281

Mathamas, ITI, 344

Matholwch (the Gael), 1, 43

Maurdramnus (= Mordrains), and vari-
ants, 1, 393f.

May-day feasts Gone: I, 83, 85

Mazadan, I, 316f.

Meaux, I, 394. — II, 377

Medbh, wife of Ailill, I, 108

Medraut (= Mordred), I, 12

Medusa-saga, I, 444

Meigle, alleged site of Guinevere’s
rave, I, 73

Melaarmaus, II, 172

Meldred, I, 142

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Meleagant, I, 193-197, 201-2, 353, 446.
— IT, 333, 380. (in prose Lancelot)

Melga, 1, 197

Méliador, by Froissart, J, 124. — I,
286 (analysis)

Meliadus, king of Leonois, Tristan’'s
father in the prose Tristas, I, 186,
490-1. — II, 22, 23

Meliadus de Leonnoys, division of
the Palamedes, II, 21, 26

Melian(s), II, 336, 338, 361-2 (in the
Quesie)

Meliant (Melianz) de Lis (Liz), I, 276

Melion, 1, 66. — IT, 185

Mellyagratmnce (oa Meleagant), I, 201.

II, 56

Melvas (Melwas), I, 197-8, 200-1, 204,
3

Memoire de Sanc, I, 366

Menestyr, father of Gwyddaws, I, 42

Meralis (Mariales), If, 172

Meraugis de Portlesgues, I, 124, 147,
273, 293, 397, 409, 444, 453, 472.
473, 479, 495. — Il, 202-208 (ana-
lysis), 214 (compared with Raguidel)

Merchant's Tale, by Chaucer, I, 187

Meriadcus, Meriadeuc (= Meriadoc),
I, 16, 466

Meriadeus (Meriadeuc). See Cheva-
liers as Deus Espees, Li.

Meriadoc, I, 16. — II, 398f.

Meriaduc, |, 53

Merlin, I, 19, 34, 72, 129-151 (main
discussion), 273, 396, 401, oe 422,
430, 434, 464, 465, 480-1,
IT, 2. 4, 29, 314ff. (in Valgete
Merlin), 363, 378

Merlin, by Lovelich, I, 127

Merlin (by Robert de Boron), I, 29,
79, 144-7, 230, 235, 237, 246, 366 f.,
395 f., 422. 427, 430, 442, 455, 456f.,
459, 461, 464, 475, 480, 491, 495.
— II, 104f. (relation to Didot-Perce-
val), 313-319 (prose analysis)

Merlin of the Pseudo-Robert-de-Boron
cycle (the so-called Huth Merlin),
], 144, 145, 151, 273, 434, 458, 461-5,
467-470, 474-482, — If, 104, 106

Merlin (Vulgate), J, 42, 87, 127, 146-
151, 216, 368, 384, '395 ff, 441, 444-6,
450, 459, 463, 488. — I, 312-323
(main discussion)

Merlin Ambrosius, I, 143

Merlin Silvester, I, 141, 143

Index of Subject-Matter

Merlinus (= Merlin), I, 129

Mervelles de Rigomer, Les, II, 246-
254 (analysis)

Mesca Ulad, I, 271

Metrical romances. See Wrench Ar-
thurian Romances in Verse

Milun, I, 61, 95 — HU, 178, 181

Minoras, TI, 399

Modena '(Cathedral), I, 14-16, 192

Modredus (= Mordred), I, 21

Mongan, legend of, I, 77

Mongan, son of Manawyddan, I, 168

Mons Badonis (Mount Badon, Badon
Hill), I, 4, 7

Mont Dolerous IT, 288, 365

Montemayor. See Diana, by Monte-
mayor.

Montserrat, I, 336

Mont St. Michel (Arthur’s combat with
giant of), I, 21

Mor, I, 332

Mordrain, I, 385, 888f., 391-4, 419,
421, 424. — II, 169, 309 f. (in L'Esto-
tre), 361 f. (in the Queste)

Mordred, I, 12, 19, 30-3, 44, 77, 113,
186, 204, 331, 395, 397, 402, 417,
430, 432, 439, 441 (incestuous birth),
464-5, 485. — II, 319 (in Vulgate
Merlin), 345, 356, 374, 376f. (in
Mort Artu)

Moresc, I, 180

Morgan (le Fay), Arthur's sister and
queen of the fairies, I, 31, 33, 79 ff.
(origin of the character), 96, 138,
143, 410, 414, 417, 434, 443, 467.
— II, 6, 318f. (in Vulgate Merlin),
337, 348, 372

Morgan le Fay’s sisters (names of),
I, 139. — II, 318

Morganis (= Morgan), 1 1, 79

Morgan Tud (Tut), I

Morgana (= Morgan. nt Fay), I, 79f.

Morgant (= Morgan), I,

Morgen (= Morgan le Fay, I sek 79, 1389

Morgetiud (= Meredith), I

Morgue (= Morgan), I, 80, 167

Morholt, Morhout, Le, I, 166, 167, 184,
189, 464

Mori(a)en, I, 812, 831, 332
Morois (Morrois), 1, 179f.
Morrigan (= Morgan), Irish battle-
goddess, f,
ett Lob ’‘Espaule, Le, by Chrétien,
1

Google

437

Mort Artu (MortArtus, MortArthur,
Mort d’Arthur, 1, 29-31, 34-5, 77,
81, 113, 205, 365, 368f., 373, 375,
378, 397f., 400-402, 409, 418, 420,
424, 426-442 (main discussion), 448,
449, 452-5, 457, 469, 466, 472-476,
485, 487. — IT, 5, 6, 161, 166, 369-
379 (ans.lysis)

Morte Arthur (stanzaic), 1, 127, 448

Morte Arthure (alliterative), I, 27,
28, 31, 74, 126, 127, 449

Morte Darthur (by Sir Thomas Ma-
lory), I, 40. — II, 22

Mount Aetna, I, 34

Mount Badon (= Mons Badonis), I

Moys(es), I, 234, 296-7, 877. — II,
108, 122, 311 ‘(in L'Estoire)

Muance del Rossignol, La, by Chré-
tien, I, 101f.

Muirgen (= Morgan ?),

Mule sans Frein, La,
215-217 ap dnd

Munsalvaesche (= Mont Salvage), I,

336
Myrddin (= Merlin), I, 129, 130
Myrrha, I, 119

Naason, I, 422
Nabaret, Il, 183
Nabugodonosor, I, 493
Nabusardan, Nabuzardan, I, 493. —
II, 33
Naisi, I, 173
Nameless Youth motif, I, 211
Nansavallan, I, 185
Narrative Lays:
Guigemar, I, 53-5; Hauttan, II,
176; Le Fratsne, IL, 176; Bis-
clavret, IT, 176, 179; Lanval, II,
176-7, 179-1 80; Les DousAmane,
II, 117, 180; Yonec II, 177-8,
180-1; Laustic, IT, 178; Milus,
IT, 178, 181; Chattével, 11, 178;
Chievrefeutl, II, 178, 181-2; Hi¢-
duc, II, 178-9, 182.
Tyolet, 11, 184; Gedn-
gamor, II, 184-5; Doon, II, 185;
Tydorel, II, 185; Melion, II, 186;
raelent, 85-6; Désiré, LU,
186
Nascien Hn Naasson), I, 382-385, 894,
397, 403 (derivation of name), 421,
422° 424. — II, 169, 309f. in L'Eeato-
ire del Saint Graal),

8. — I,

438

Navigatio Brendani, 1, 139, 190, 891

Nebuchadnezzar. See ‘Nabugodonosor.

Nectanabus, I, 471

Nennius, I, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 21, 51, 75-6,
82, 132-134. Al, 46, Fy

Niccolo, architect, I, 16

Nicodemus, I, 230-1, 240, 287, 861

Nicodemus, pacudo-gosp , of, I, 444
Niniane (= Viviane),
Nivard, I, 17

I, 332-3. — II, 169, 332,

Norgales,
849, 355

Noveile, Italian, IT, 41 (influenced by
the prose romances)

Ocrvan, variant of "Gogrvan". I, 44

Odee, Norwegian princess, I, 852

Oedipus legend, I, 441, 492, 493

Ogrin, I, 165

L'Oiseau Bleu, II, 180

Orc treith (= Turch Trwyth), I, 51

Orgellous de la Lande, I, 228. — Il, 8

Orgeluse, I, 353

Orguellouse Emprise, L’, II, 334

Oriant, father of Le Lait ‘Hardi, I, 465

Orilus, I, 334, 341

Orlando Furioso, I, 494. — IT, 40

Orlando Innamorato, by Boiardo,
U, 7

Orson,

Orwen, \Meviadoc’ 8 sister, II, 85

, 1, 277

Otherworld Apples, I, 438

Otherworld Journeys, I, 64, 97f.

Outre-Gales, Ii, 70

Outres, I, 487

Ovid, 1, 101- 103, 2038. — II, 69

Owain, II, 73

Owen (and Lunet) (= Lady of the
Fountain), I, ‘e 46, 70

Owein (= Yvain), I , 3, 345

Paien de Maisieres, II, 215-217 (La
Mule sanz Frain)

Palamedes, I, 448, 466, 472, 475, 485,
489, 492

Palamedes, I, 483, 486, 488. — II,
20-25 (main notice)

Pannenoisance (Pannennoiseuse), II,
164, 172

Pant (= Ban), I, 208, 404

Paolo (and Francesca), I, 41?

Parise and Oenone story, I, 188f.

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Parise la Duchesse, I, 442, 453

Parmanie (Parmenie), I, 166, 185, 831

Partinal, I, 304

Parsival, by Wolfram von Eschen-
bach, I, 124, 225, 3138f.

Pascentius, Vortigern’s son, I, 138

Passio Matthaei, I, 386, 388, 401

Patelamunt, I, wee

Paterne (Saint), I,

Patient Griselda, rie 68, 110. — I,
60-61

Patrick (St.), legend of, I, 199, 888

Patrides, II, 343

Paulart, I, 473

Paulus Aurelianus, life of, I, 182

Pelerinage de Charlemagne, I, 409

Pelleas and Ettarre, 1, 464

Pellehan (Pelleam, Pellean, Pellan),
I, 272f., 375, 466. — II, 184

Pellen (= Pellehan), I, 471

Pelles (de Listenois), I, 895, 407, 419,
457, 471. — II, 312, 320, 356, 859
‘a prose Lancelot), 367, 368

Pelles’s daughter (Galahad’s mother),
T, 397, 414, 488. — II, 147, 349 (in
prose Lancelvt), 858, 339, 360

Pellias (= Pelleans?), J, 464

Pellindr, I, 875, 384, 444, 464, 465,

2, 488. — II, 22, 23, 366

Pelrapeire (— Beaurepaire), I, 825

Penzance, IT, 11, 164, 172

Perceval, I, 192-3, 212, 215, 223ff.,
261 ff. etymology of the name), 264
293-6, 304, 313f., 350, 363, 376, 884.
407, 420, ‘428, 447, 465, 491, 492.
— Il, 1 ff. (in 'Didot-Perceval), 10,
14-18 (in Perlesvaus), 23, 107, 145-
162 (as Grail-hero), 168, 164, 358-9
(in prose Lascelot), 360ff. (in the

Queste)

Perceval (li Gallois), by Chrétien, I,
51, 58, 70, 72, 102-3, 112, 116, 120,
127-8, 156-7, 162, 184, 195, 207,
219f., 223-230 (analysis), 237, 243-4)
246, 247- 260, 256, 266, 27
293, 295-7, 309-314, 817, 320, $23.
827, 342, ‘345-7, 385, 399, 407 f.,
419, 421, 442, 444, 451, 453, 465,
479. — il, 62, 70, ' 83-84 (date 0
a (the spurious introduction to),

Perceval-Continuation, by Wauchier
de Denain, I, 58 452
Perceval’s Aunt, IT, 862-8

Index of Subject-Matter

Perceval’s Sister, I, 385, 419 (origin),
420. 426. 427. — II, 3, 4, 13, 36df.
(in the Queste)

Peredur, King of North Wales. I, 136

Peredur (ab Evratoc), I. 38, 46, 70,
72, 192, 225, 252 (Welsh name for
Perceval), 299, 309f., 389. 342°ff.
(main discussion). — II, 73, 74

Perilous Bed, I, 273. — II, 339

Perilous Forest, II, 363

Perilous Palace, I. 471

Perilous Seat, I, 425. 427, 471. — I,
8358f. (in prose Lancelot)

Perlesvaus, 1,235, 253. 255, 260, 263,
353, 379, 396. 420. 453, 457, 465.
— II, 8-19 (main discussion), 145-
147 (relation to To nsee Cycle)

Peronnik i’Idiote, I.

Perron Merlin. I, 494

Persides (of Gazewilte). II, 319

Pesme Avanture, II, 74, 80

Peter, ancestor of Gawain, II, 311

Peter von Staufenberg, I{, 180

Petitcri. Iseult’s dog, I, 170, 186

Petrus, I, 233. — II, 122

Petrus Tristanides. See Pierre
Tristan.

Pharain. I, 466

Pharamont. King of Gaul, II, 22

Philip (Saint), 1, 262f.

a Augustus, King of France, I,

Philip of Alsace. Count of Flanders,
I, 104, 219. 220. 243, 294, 359
Philip of Poitiers, on Ye author of

Wolfram’s source, I, 3i8f.
Philippis, 1, 451
Philomena, I, 102
Pierre Tristan, I, 164, 163
Pierres Pandues (= Stonehenge), I, 62
Pilate, I, 230-2, 238, 239
Pinegon, II, 357
Pintadol, lI, 336
Platin, Claude, II, 288
Pliny, If, 62
Pluris, I, 209. 210
Plutarch, I. 277
Pompey, the Great. IT, 309
Porta della Pescheria (Modena Cath-
edral), I, 14, 15, 16
Portuguese Versions of Arthurian Ro-
mances:
1. Historia dos Cavalieiros da
Mesa Redonda et da Demanda

Google

489

do Santo Graal, I, 469; 2. Liuro
de Iosep Abaramatia, I, 460;
8. Estoria do Emperador Ves-
pasiano, I, 460; 4. Historia de
Lancelote Leonel e Galvan, I,
289. For all these romances
See II, 291-2.
Posidonius, I, 87
Preiddeu Annwn (= The Harry- -
tings of Hades), Welsh poem, I. 40
poe John, Letter of, 1, 829, 339,
55
Priadan le Noir. II, 365
Prophécies de Merlin, Les French
romance, I, 136. — II, 28-30 (main
notice)
Prydein (Britain), I, 43, 44
Prydwen, Arthur's ship, I, 40
Prydwen (Britain), I, 43
Pseudo-Gautier. See Pseudo-Wauchier.
Pseudo-Robert cycle of the Prose Ro-
rein I, 458-479 (main discussion),

Pseudo-Wauchier. I, 257, 273, 283,
285, 290-2. 294-30! (analysis). 302,
304, 306-8, 314. 339, 348, 381, 382,
883. 385. 399, 407f., 419, 442, 452.
— II, 88-9, 93f., 163, 164. 198-202

Pwyll, ear eee Dyved (Dyvet), I, 45,

b 9

oe Knights, I[, 322

ueens del Parc, II. 358

Queste del Saint Graal, I 92, 214,
242, 260. 303, 305, 335, 368f.. 372-
381, 383-8, 393-5, 397-400, 402,
407f., 419-425 (main discussion),
427-9, 438, 442, 451-9, 461, 469,
470, 472, 474, 475-7, 480, 485-7,
491. — II, 7, 18 (wherein it differs
from the Perlesvaus), 360-369 (an-
alysis)

Quonomorius (= Marc), I, 182

Raoul de Houdenc, I, 123, 408f., 453.
— I], 202-208 (Meraugis de Portles-
guez), 208-215 (La Vengeance de
Raguidel)

a aes of Hergest, The, I, 40, 48,

Red Knight, The a Chrétien’s Per-
ceval) 1, 225, 226, 310

Renaud de Beaujeu, I, 123, 127. —

440

T1, 101, 194ff. (Li Biaus Descou-
neus),

Renaut, author of sonore: I, 64

Repanse de Schoie, 1, 339

sa Picasa of Diarmaita, The, I, 172,
174

Rhiannon, I, 303

Rhydderch ap Tudwal, I, 181

Rhydderch Hael, I, 141

Rich Fisher, The, I, 236-7, 243-4, 257,
260, 297. — I, 135, 311 (in L’Heto-
tre)

Richard of Normandy, I, 288

Richeut. 1, 66

Rigomer, I, 206

Rig- Veda, I, 358

a king of the giants, II, 319, 320,

Ritho, I, 21

Ritual Theory, The, I, 277-289

Rivalen (Rivalin), Tristan's father,
I, 118. 157, 166, 186

Riwelin (Riwelen), See Rivalen

Robert de Boron, I, 29, 79, 144, 145-7,
161, 219-223. 280, 237-9, 241-6,
255-6, 263, 266-8, 275, 277, 282,
284. 298, 308, 355f,, 365f., 373,
879-381, 386f., 391f., 395f., 419,
420, 422, 426, 427, 430, 486, 487.
— II, t 104 ff. (the relation of the
Didot-Perceval to his works), 114-
135 (main discussion), 308, 312f.
(Vulgate Merlin)

Robert de Torigni, I. 18

Rodarchus. Merlin’s brother-inlaw, J,
136, 137, 138

Rodlieb (Ruodlieb), I, 107

Roland, Charlemagne’s nephew, I, 441

Roman de Thébes, li, 74, 78-9

Romantic Revival, Il, 39 (influence
on metrical romances)

Romenie, I, 487

Romulus and Remus, Il, 53

Rotelan-Ruddlan, Il, 71

Round Table (Roonde Table), I. 57, 73,
82 ff. (origin of), 377, 423, 428, 429,
431, 435, 439. 448, 473, 488. —
II, 2f. (in the Didot- Perceval), 106,
817f. (in Vulgate Merlin), 334, 356-
359 (in prose Lancelot), 361f. (in
the Queste), 375

Run (Rum) mab Urbgen, I, 9

Rusticiano da Pisa (Rusticien de Pise),

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Compilation of, II, 21, 26-28 (main
notice)

Rydderch Hael, a prince of North
Britain, I, 44

Ryt-Eselt, I, 183

Sabren (Severn), I, 41
Sabrina, goddess of the river Severn,

3

Sacro Catino, I, 860-2

Sadoc, I, 492. — II, 33, 1657

Saga af Tristram ok Isondar, I, 162

et (li Desrees), I, 228, 304, 314,
eee 491. — II, 820, 823, 332,
44

St’ pent s chapel, II, 169, 170-1

Saint Greal, I, 255

ae eh : chapel (at Glastonbury),

St. Philip, I. 158

Saint-Pierre de Beauvais, I, 115

Saint-Samson, Isle of, I, 166. 184

St. Stephen's Cathedral, II, 356, 375

Salisbury, I, 3035. 372. 486. — II, 817
(in Vulgate Merlin), 869

Salisbury Plains, scene of Arthur's
“oA battle, I, 430, 436. — LL, 322,

Salvator Rosa. II, 78

Samaliel, I, 466

ae de Nanteuil (Dits Salamon),

6

Sang Real, I, 255

Sangrail. I, 255

Sank(e) royail, I, 265

Saraide, 1, 415. — II, gs 8342, 343

Sarmenie (= Parmenie?), [, 831

Sarras, the Heavenly City, I, '397, 423.
— Il, 169, 308, 368, 369

Saxon, Saisne (= “heathen’ "), II, 5

Scandinavian versions, mediaeval, of
the romances, IT, 74,

bbe |. Scharfenberg, ‘Albrecht, II, 299,

Schatel le Mort, I, 209

Scudéry, II, 41

Seat Perilous, I, 400

Sebile, I, 381. — II, 348

Secandille, I, 353

Segurade, L 489, 491. — II, 331

Seldina (= Yseult), I, 14

Bell devine Chessmen, I, 407. — U,
3

Senhange (= Stonehenge), I, 62

Index of Subject-Matter

Sephar, II, 340

Seraphe, ITI, 309

Serglige Conculaind (= Cuchulinn’s
Sick Bed), 1, 94

Serses (Cerses), I, 410

Servius, I, 1

Shakespeare, I, 35, 115

Sigune, I, 333

Silvius Ascanius, II, 63

Sinados de Windesores, II, 331, 332

Str Orfeo, If. 186

Sir Perceval (Percyvelle) of Galles,
I, 127, 211, 225, 299, 309-312 (main
discussion), 340f. (points of contact
with Wolfram)

Str Tristrem, I, 126, 127, 162

Snowdon, I, 132

Sohrab and Rustem mot#f, J, 413, 467

Solinus, I, 329

Solomon, King, II, 309

Solomon and Aschmedai (stories), I,
133, 149

Solomon and Marcolf story, I, 115
151, 391

Solomon’s Ship, I, 375, 385, 391, 419,
425, 427. — II, 309f. (in L’Hstotre),
365f. (in the Quesze)

Somerset (aestiva regio), I, 197, 200,
201

Sone de Nausay (Nausai), I, 297,
850 ff. (main discussion). — II, 69-70

Soredamors, Cliges’s mother, I, 113

Sorelois, [, 415, 446. — II, 831, 332-3,
334, 338, 375

Sornehan. II, 346f.

Spain, influence of prose romances on,

Spanish Versions of Arthurian Ro-
mances:
1. El Baladro del Sabio Merlin,
I, 462, note 12; 2. Fragments of
theJoseph, Merlin, and Demanda
(entitled Leyes de Palencia), I,
462; 3. Lanzarote del Lago, Il,
289-290; 4. Hl Cuentode Tristan,
If. 290; 5. La Estoria del noble
Vespasiano, II, 290; 6. Libro
del Esforgado Cauallero Don
Tritsan de Leonis y de sus
Grandes Fechos en Armas, Il,
290-1; 7. Cronica nuevamente
emendada y afiadida del buen
caballero dun Tristan de Leonia
y del rey don Tristan de Leonis,

Hefperia, Ecgdnsungsreihe: 9.

Google

441

el joven. su hijo, II, 291; Hésto-
ria de Perceval de Gaula, etc.
II, 291; Triunfos de Sagramor
etc., La Cronica etc., If, 292
Speculum Ecclesiae, by Giraldus
Cambrensis, I, 77, 78. 264f.
Spenser, Edmund, II. 40
Spiritual Palace, I, 471
Stag, symbolizing Christ, I, 420
Stonehenge, I, 62
Stone of Destiny, I 273, 274
Story of Eagle-Boy, The, 1. 92
Story of the Crop-Eared Dog, The,

I, 192

ees the old Celtic kingdom,
I, 7

Strengletkar, II, 183

Suite de Lancelot, 1, 447

Swan Knight, 1, 300, 306, 308, 321,
339. 353

Swedish metrical romance: Duke Fre-
derik of Normandy, II, 307

Swinburne, I, 273, 467

Sword of Light. I, 280f.

Sword of the Strange Hangings. I, 427.
See L’Espée as estranges renges.

Symeu and Chanaan, lI, 311

Symeu’s burning grave, II, 340, 368

Syre Gawene and the Carl of Care-
lyle, I, 128

Tacitus, I, 3. — II, 52

Tailleor d'argent (of the Grail proc-
ession), I, 257, 260, 328

Tain bo Cualnge (— Cattle-Raid
of Cooley). 1, 87

Tale of Balen, The, I, 273

Tale of Mac Datho’s Pig, 1, 83, 270

Talies(s)in, I, 130, 138, 139, 140

Tallwch, I, 178-9, 181

Talorcan, I, 178

Talorch, I, 186. See Talorg.

Talorg, I, 179

Taneborc (Edinburgh), II. 371

Tantris (— Tristran), I, 166

Tara, I, 83, 272, 275

Tared (Prince), father of Twrch
Trwyth, I. 51

Tasso, If, 40 (his debt to Alamanni),
41

Tauroc, II, 372
Tacvla Ritonda, La, I, 162, 163,
48, 484

Tegan Euron (= Tegan of the Golden
29

442
Breast), wife of Caradoc Briebraz,
89

Templeise, I, 335

Tennyson. I, 71, 72, 104, 150-1, 273,
422, 448, 464, 467. — II, 193 (re-

_ lation to Welsh tale, Geraint?)

Terdelaschoye, a fairy, I, 317

Ter(r)ican, II, 348, 352

Terre Foraine, I, 385, 466. — II, 312,
839

Terre Gaste, I, 385, 466. II, 362

Thanabus (= Nectanabus), J, 471

Thanaguis’s sweetheart, I[, 345 =:

Thebes, Roman de, I, 107, 111, 324,
330, 397

Theseus legend, I, 188f.

Thessala, I, 100, 114, 115

The Green Knight, I, 128

The Jeaste of Syr Gawayne, I, 128

The Turk and Gowin, I, 128

The Weddynge of Syr Gawen and
Dame Ragnell, I, 128

ral (= Ptolemy), II, 308, 309,

Thomas, author of Hors, I, 158

Thomas, author of Tristan, I, 58,
62, 64, 122, 126, 158, 155-165, 168,
186, 31a, 436

Thomas of Erceldoune, I, 1

a days Tournament motif I 211f.,

eats I, 6

Tintagel, I, 73, 176. — II, 317, 889

Tiresias, I, 493 :

Titurel. the Grail King, I. 316f.

Titurel, by Wolfram von Eschenbach,
I, 313, 319, 324, 326

Toghail Bruighne da Derga, I, 270

Tomb Knight, 1, 302

Tortain, a monster, I, 61

Tour de la Blanche Espine, IT, 362

Tower (or Mountain) of Glass =
Otherworld. I, 200

Trabuchet (Trebuchet), I, 228, 296,
385

Trahan le Gai, IT, 336

Trahant, I, 414

Trebes, II, 321

Treyrizent, I, 317, 318, 384

Triads, 1, 43f. (main notice), 75, 78
89, 131, 180, 181, 267, 436

Tristan, I. 38, 72, 77, 152-191 (main
notice), 204. 209, 210, 436, 447, 448,
458, 472, 473. — II, 28, 26

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Tristan, in prose, I, 160, 161, 185,

re 216, 293, 399, 446, 447, 449,

463. 468, 466, 468, 469, 471-

5, 5-0, 483-495 (main discussion).
15

Tristan, by Béroul. See Béroul.

a atl by Chretien, I, 101, 102,
103, 156

Rata: by Gottfried von Strassburg.
See Gottfried von Strassburg.

Tristun, by Thomas. See Thomas,
author of Tristan.

Tristan, the lost romance (Ur-Tr#-
stan), I, 123, 152ff., 165-171, 176,
188, 189

Tristan fragments (in Welsh), I, 180

ees ag legend, localizations of, I,

eer legend in the decorative arts,

oe

Tristan Menestrel, I, 292

Tristan’s Leap, I, 184

Tristanz-qui-onques-ne-rist, I, 191

Tristran (= Tristan), I, 164

Tristrant, by Eilhart von Oberge.
See Eilhart von Oberge.

Troie, Roman de, I, 107, 111, 119,
157. 324, 397, 410

Trostayne, Trostenus, and variants
“erat for Turstin, Tosteins,
etc.), I, 177f.

Trot, Il, "183

Troynt, marvellous boar, I, 8

Tuatha de Danann, I. 271, 273

re Trwyth, marvellous boar, I, 10,

Turning island, II. 309

Tydorel, I. 66, 317. — II, 185

Tyolet, Il, 184

Uath Mac Imomain (= Fright, son
of Great bras : Biant, I, 89

Ulfin (Urfin). JI,

Ulrich von Srakeabote: I, 322

Ulrich von Tiirheim, I, 161

Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, I, 206 207,
210, 211, 212, 213-6, ‘371, 453

Urbgen (= Urien), I, 3, 9

Urbigenus (= Urien), I, 8

Urganda, enchantress of the Spanish
romances, derived from Morgan le
Fay. I, 33

Urien, Yvain’s father, I, 3,9. — IL. 36

Uther Pendragon, I, 19, 33, 185, 144—

Index of Subject-Matter

6, 317, 430. — II, 2, 22, 23, 315 ff.
(in Vulgate Merlis)

Vagor, IT, 353

Valerin, I, 209, 210. — I, 331

Valley of False Lovers, I, 416

Valvanus (= Gawain?), I, 13

Vaire Capiele (Vari-colored Chapel),
where Arthur was interred, I, 431

Varlan, corruption for Brulant, I, 466,
467

Vengeance de Raguidel, La, 1, 124,
397. — II, 163, 208-215 (analysis)

Venjeance Nostre Seigneur, I, 158

Verrine (Veronica), I, 232

Vespasian, I, 232, 238, 239. — II, 808

Viamundus. a fisherman, II, 36

Vindicta Salvatoris, I, 238. — HU,
128

Virgil (Vergil), I, 199, 338f., 410

Visto Tnugdali, I, 204

eae Gildae, I, 196-201, 205, 265,

7

Vita Merlini, poem. by Geoffrey of
Monmouth, I, 33, 34, 79, 80, 82,
130, 135-144 (analysis), 148, 149,
196, 428, 442. — II, 5, 37

Viviane (Vivien), the woman who be-
guiled Merlin. I, 149, 150, 151, 395f,
401, 480. — II, 320, 323

Vortigern, I, 4, 61, 131, 182-5. — II,
315ff. (in Vulgate Merlin)

Vortimer, son of Vortigern, I, 4

Voyage of Maelduin, The, I, 86, 88

Vulgate Cycle, The, I, 367-457. —
1], 136-144 (theories of Brugger
and Lot)

Vulgate Merlin. See Merlin (Vul-
gate).

Wace, J, 25-33 (main discussion), 67,
76, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 103, 119,
144, 147, 157, 246, 248, 249. 350,
396, 430, 434, 439, 440, 467. —
II, 5, 77, 100, 131

Walchmoe, Breton equivalent of Welsh
Gwalchmei, I, 21

Waldef, I, 154

Walewein Ga I, 407

Walgainus (= Gawain), I, 13, 21

Walgannus (= Gawain), I, 13

Walguainus (= Gawain), I, 21. —
Il, 57,

Google

443

Walquan(n)us (= Gawain?), I, 12, 18

Walter, hdeacon of Oxford, I, 19,
20, 24, 372

Walven (= Gawain), I, 21

Walwains (= Gawain), I, 21 —

Walwanus (= Gawain?), I, 12, 13

Walweitha (=: Galloway), I, 21

Waluuithia (= Galloway), I, 21.

‘Walz, M., II, 299 ;

Warinus (Letter to, by Henry of
Huntingdon), I, 18

Wauchier de Denain, I, 58, 257, 285-
7, 290-2, 294, 296. 302-4, 307f.,
314, 347, 365, 381, 399, 407f., 421,
442, 452. — II, 3, 7, 18, 86-7, 91f,,
109, 111, 121, 131, 163, 202

Wehlenberg, I, 336

Weland, I, 466

Welsh tales; their relation to Chrétien,
I, 59ff.

Weroc, Breton form for “Erec”, I,
109. — II, 71

Weston’s (Miss) Gawain Complex, I],
91-103. See “Weston” under Index
of Critics.

Wheel of Fortune, I, 484 (in Arthur's
vision)

Wieland, II, 25

Wieland saga, I, 306

Wihumar (= Guigemar), J, 53

Wildenberc (Wildenbergen), I, 336

Wiligelmo, architect, I, 15

Willehalm, by Wolfram vou Eschen-
bach, I, 313, 319, 324, 329

William of Malmesbury, I, 12, 21,
38, 198-200, 262, 265-7. — II, 223

William of Newburgh, I, 23

William of Tyre, I, 360-2

Williams Hugh, I, 5

Winchester tournament, II, 370

Winlogee, I, 14, 16, 17

Wirale nunnery, II, 169

Wis and Ramin, I, 191

Wolfram von Eschenbach, I, 124, 257,
258, 264, 277, 306, 309f., 3139 ff.
men discussion), 353-5, 382, 399,

Wooing of Emer, The, I, 227
Wooing of Etain, The, I, 197
Wrmonoe, I, 182

Yder (romance), I, 14, 16, 311. —
II, 220-4 (analysis)
Ygerne, II, 317f.

Aad

Ygloas (Y gial, Iglais), Perceval’s
mother, 11,

eG (Inis) ae (= Glastonbury),
198
Yaya witryn (= Glastonbury), I, 198,

Ynywil, II, 66

Yonec, I, 60. — II, 177-8, 180-1
Yones, I, 225

Ysaune, oe : mother, I, 90
Ysengrimus, I,

Yapaddaden Paes father df Olwen,

48
Ystoria Tristan, I, 181

Google

Evolution of Arthurian Romance

Yvain, I, 3 (etymology of name), 9
340, 5, ; _ | 833f.
(in prose Lancelot), 361 f. (in the
_Queste)

Yoain (= Chevalier au Lion) by
Chrétien de Troyes, I, 67, 70, 95 H
(analysis), 99. 102-3, 112, 120, 127,
212, 220, 249. 407, 420, 495. — I,
41, 62, 73, 75-82 (sources of)

Yoain and Gawain, I, 127

Yoain-Owain controversy, II, 73f.

Yvannus (= Yvain), I, 14

Zazamanc, I, 323

Bibliographischer Nachtrag.

Auf Wunsch des Verlages, der das treffliche Werk des
allzufruh der Artus- und Gralforschung entrissenen James
Douglas Bruce infolge der Zeitumstinde nur in einem un-
verinderten Abdruck aufs neue der Fachwelt unterbreiten kann,
habe ich es unternommen, zu dem bibliographischen Teile die
wichtigsten Nachtrige zu liefern, die sich etwa bis 1927 er-
strecken. Es konnte nicht in unserer Absicht liegen, durch
Verarbeitung dieses Stoffes etwa in Form von kurzen Exkursen
Bruce’s Ausfiihrungen zu ergiinzen oder gar in einigen Punkten
zu bessern. Da alles bei ihm nach einem bestimmten Plane
ausgearbeitet ist, trigt es eben den Charakter seiner Eigenart.
Auch wire eine solche Aufgabe fast eine Versuchung gewesen,
eréBere Teile von einem anderen Standpunkte aus durchzu-
arbeiten und so der Absicht des Verfassers entgegen zu wirken.
Bruce’s Werk ist seiner ganzen Bedeutung nach und in seiner
praktischen Brauchbarkeit bereits so anerkannt, da§ jiingst
Wolfgang Golther in seinem griéferen Werke ‘Parzival und
der Gra)’ (1925) nicht nur Bruce’s Grundsitze anerkannte,
sondern auch ftir die Bibliographie auf Bruce’s Verzeichnisse
verweisen konnte. AuSerdem hat es Gustav Rosenhagen
in der siebenten Auflage (1927) der Parzivalttbersetzung von
Wilhelm Hertz tibernommen, den gesamten Stoff, der sich auf
die Gralforschung bezieht, in einem besonderen Nachtrage
kritisch darzustellen. So konnte meine Aufgabe wesentlich
einfacher ausfallen. In meiner Neuedition von Chrestien’s Gral-
dichtung nebst den-Fortsetzungen auf Grund aller bekannten
Handschriften, die nahezu fertig vorliegt, hoffe ich all jenes
beizubringen, was sich auch seit dem Erscheinen dieses Werkes
fir die Gralforschung an neuen Gesichtspunkten ergeben hat.

Alfons Hilka (Gdttingen)

29a

Google

446 Evolution of Arthurian Romance.

Allgemeines.

J. Bédier et P. Hazard, Histoire de la littérature francaise illustrée,
Paris s.d., t. 1, p. 18: Les romans bretons; p. 23: Marie de
France: les lais; p. 38: Les romans de la Table ronde; p. 40:
Le cycle de Saint Graal.

J. Bédier, A. Jeanroy et F. Picavet, Histoire de la nation francaise,
t. XII, Paris s. d., p. 271: La littérature francaise au XIl°
siécle (L’aristocratie dans les provinces du Nord, sa culture et ses

golts. — La littérature d’imagination, ses sources et ses carac-
téres. — Les romans bretons. — p. 357: Les récits romanesques
en vers; romans arthuriens, d’aventures et de meurs. — Le rv-

man en prose; Lancelot du Lac).

L. A. Hibbard, Mediaeval Romance in England. A Study of the Sources
and Analogues of the non-cyclic Metrical Romances, New York
1924, Rez. MLR. 20 (1925), 339 (C. Brett); MON. 41 (1926),
406 (Kk. Malone); Z. f. rom. Ph. 46 (1926), 500 (A. Hilka): Anglia,
Beibl. 36 (1925), 332 (G. Binz).

H. Schneider, Heldendichtung, Geistlichendichtung, Ritterdichtung,
Heidelberg 1925, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur, hgb.
A. Koster u. J. Petersen I, p. 238: Chrestien de Troyes; p. 247:
Tristansage; p. 261: Hartmann von Aue; p. 271: Wolfram von
Eschenbach; p. 279: Gralforschunz; p. 280: Kyotfrage; p. 287:
Gottfried von StraBburg; p. 307: Lancelet des Ulrich von Zatzik-
hoven. Rez. LGRPh. 47 (1926), 145 (G. Ehrismann).

Fr. Schiirr, Das altfranzisische Epus, Miinchen 1926, p. 299: Die Um-
bildung des epischen Stiles; p. 338: Gautier d'Arras und der
Abenteuerroman; p. 304: Die bretonische Stoffwelt; p. 366: Die
Lais der Marie de France; p. 388: Tristanromane; p. 408: Kristian
von Troyes; p. 428: Der heilige Gral. Rez. Rom. 62 (1926),
559 (M. Roques); RR. 18 (1927,) 346 (H. F. Muller); Neoph. 12
(1927), 223 (J. J. Salverda de Grave); Nph. Mttg. 28 (1927),
113 (H. Wallenskoeld).

W. Schwarzkopff, Sagen und Geschichten aus dem alten Frankreich
und England, Miinchen 1925. Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph. (A. Hilka': MLN.
41 (1926), 546 (T. F. Crane).

E. Tegethoff, Franzésische Volksmarchen, Jena 1923, p. 36: Parzival
in der Graalsburg; p. 42: Ivain; p. 137: Aus den Lais der Marie
de France.

Fr. Vogt, Geschichte der mittelhochdeutschen Literatur. I. Teil: Friih-
mittelhochdeutsche Zeit. Bliitezeit I: Das hétische Epos bis auf
Gottfried von StraBburg. 3. Aufl. Berlin u. Leipzig 1922, p. 210:
Der Artusroman und Hartmann von Aue: p. 207: Wolfram von

Google

Bibltographischer Nachtrag. 447

Eschenbach und der Gral; p. 316: Gottfried von StraBburg. Rez.
LGRPh. 47 (1926), 145 (G. Ehrismann).

Altfranzésische Kunstepik (Allgemeines).

S. F. Barrow, The Medieval Society Romances. Diss. Columbia Uni-
versity, New York 1924 (The machinery of courtly love. —
Courtly love and society).

E. R. Goddard, Women’s Costume in French Texts of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, Baltimore 1927, Johns Hopkins Studies in
Romance Interature and Language 7.

St. Hofer, Studien zum héfischen Roman, ZF'SL. 46 (1923), 386: Die
Voraussetzung des hifischen Epos. — Der Inhalt des héfischen
Epos. — Die héfischen Ideale im Epos. — Die neue Roman-
technik. — Die Vorliufer. — Erec, der erste héfische Roman.
ZFSL. 47 (1925), 193: Minnesang und Epos. — Ubereinstim-
mungen mit dem Volksepos.

ZESL. 47 (1925), 267: Die Entstehung der Liebe. — Das Herz
im Motiv. — Amor als Person. — Die Konkretisierung der Minne:
Die Liebe als Krankheit, das Wesen der Krankheit, Unheilbar-

yr keit, Dauer und Stirke, die Heilung. —- Die Verehrung der Herrin
in Frankreich. — Die Abstrakta des Minnesanges im Epos. —
Der Minnedienst.

Artussage (Allgemeines).

_~ M. W. Beckwith, A note on Punjab Legend in relation to Arthurian
Romance, Medieval Studies in memory of Gertrude Schépperle
Loomis, Paris and New York 1927, 50.

A.C. L. Brown, The Irish Elements in King Arthur and the Grail,
Medieval Studies in memory of Gertrude Schépperle Loomis,
Paris and New York 1927, 95.

A. C. L. Brown, A note on the Nugae of G. H. Gerould’s .King Ar-
thur and Politics*, Speculum 2 (1927), 449.

— James Douglas Bruce, 1862—1928, MPh. 20 (1922/23), 338.

J.D. Bruce, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance from the Beginnings
down to the Year 1300, 2 vols., Géttingen 1923. Rez. LGRPh.
46 (1925), 5 (W. Golther); Z.f.rom.Ph. 46 (1926), 492 (A. Hilka);
MEIN. 39 (1924), 482 (G. H. Maynadier); JEGPh. 23 (1924), 582
(R. S. Loomis); MER. 20 (1925), 209 (J. L. Weston); MPh. 22
(1924/25), 99 (W. Nitze).

J. D. Bruce, Mordred’s incestuous birth, Medieval Studies in memory
of Gertrude Schépperle Loomis, Paris and New York 1927,
197.

29a*

Google

448 Kvolution of Arthurian Romance.

E. K. Chambers, Arthur of Britain, London 1927.

N. H. Clement, The Influence of the Arthurian Romances on the five
books of Rabelais, Berkeley, California 1926, University of Cali-
fornia Publications in Modern Philology 12,3 (1926), 147.
Rez. JEGPh. 26 (1927), 271 (Arthur C. L. Brown).

P. Deschamps, La légende arthurienne 4 la cathédrale de Modéne et
l’école lombarde de sculpture romane, Paris 1926. Rez. Rom. 53
(1927), 445 (M. Roques).

A. G. van Hamel, Koning Arthur's vader, Neoph. 12 (1926), 34.

L. Hibbard Loomis, Arthur's Round Table, PMLA. 41 (1926), 771.
Rez. MPh. 25 (1927), 242 (A. C. L. Brown).

R. Sh. Loomis, The Story of the Modena Archivolt and its mytho-
logical roots, RAR. 15 (1924), 266.

— Medieval Iconography and the Question of Arthurian Origins, MLN.
40 (1925), 65.

— Romance and Epic in the romanesque art of Italy, Nuovi Studi
medievali 2 (1926), 105.

— The Date, Source, and Subject of the Arthurian Sculpture at Mo-
dena, Medieval Studies in memory of Gertrude Schépperle
Loomis, Paris and New York 1927, 209.

— Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance, New York 1927. Rez. MLN.
42 (1927), 560 (W. A. Nitze); Rom. 53 (1927), 401 (F. Lot).

J. Loth, L’historicité d’Arthur d’aprés un travail récent, Rev.celt. 42
(1925), 306.

F. P. Magoun, An Index of abbreviations in Miss Alma Blount’s un-
published ,Onomasticon Arthurianum“, Speculum 1 (1926), 190.

Kemp Malone, Artorius, MPA. 22 (1924/25), 367.

— The Historicity of Arthur, JEGPh. 23 (1924), 463.

J. J. Parry, Modern Welsh Versions of the Arthurian Stories, JEG Ph.
21 (1922), 572.

— An Arthurian Parallel, MEN. 39 (1924), 307.

M. Schlauch, Literary Exchange between England and Sicily, RR. 14
(1923), 168 (p. 174: Artus im Atna).

Fr. Schiirr, Das Aufkommen der matiére de Bretagne im Lichte der
verinderten literarhistorischen Betrachtung, GRM. 9 (1921), 96.

S. Singer, Die Artussage, Bern u. Leipzig 1926. Rez. ZFSL. 50
(1927), 161 (E. Brugger); 46. Anzg. zur Z.f.d.A. 64 (1927), 43
(J. F. D. Blite).

E. van der Ven Ten Bensel, The Character of King Arthur in English Lite-
rature, Amsterdam 1925. Rez. MLN. 42 (1927), 417 (John J. Parry).

KE. H. Waller, A Welsh Branch of the Arthur Family-Tree, Speculum 1
(1926), 344.

Google

Bibliographischer Nachtrag. 449

Chroniken und Artussage.

KE. Faral, Geoffrey de Monmouth, les faits et les dates de sa biographie,
Rom. 53 (1927), 1.

M. Forster, War Nennius ein Ire?, Finke-Festschrift, Minster 1925,
36. Rez. Rev. celt. 42 (1925), 461.

G. Hall Gerould, King Arthur and Politics, Speculum 2 (1927), 33.
Acton Griscom, The Date of Composition of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s
Historia; new manuscript evidence, Speculum 1 (1926), 129.

A. H. Krappe, Note sur un épisode de |l’Historia Britonum de Nennius,
Rev. celt. 41 (1924), 181.

F. Liebermann, Die angebliche Entdeckung einer brythonischen *Ge-
schichte aus der Rémerzeit: Galfrid von Monmouth und Tysylio,
ASNS. 144 (1922), 31.

— Nennius der Britenhistoriker, ASNS. 152 (1927), 218.

F. Lot, De la valeur historique du De excidio et conquestu Britanniae
de Gildas, Medieval Studies in memory of Gertrude Schépperle
Loomis, Paris and New York 1927, 229.

H. Matter, Englische Griindungssagen von Geoffroy of Monmouth bis
zur Renaissance, Heidelberg 1922, Angl. Forschungen 58.

W. A. Nitze, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s King Arthur, Speculum 2
(1927), 317.

J.J. Parry, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Josephus, Speculum 2 (1927), 446.

K. T. Sage, Giraldus Cambrensis and Petronius, Speculum 2 (1927), 203.

R. Thurneysen, Zum Geburtsjahr des Gildas, 7.f.celt.Ph. 14 (1923), 13.

Wace.

St. Hofer, Wace und die héfische Kunst, Z.f.rom.Ph, 43 (1923), 221.
M. M. Jirmounsky, Essai d’analyse des procédés littéraires de Wace,
Rev.d.l. rom. 65 (1925), 261.

Gaimar.

A. Bell, Le Lai d’Haveloc and Gaimar’s Haveloc Episode edited, Man-
chester 1925. Rez. MLR. 22 (1927), 476 (W. K. Pope).

Marie de France und Laisdichtung.
KE. Brugger, Eigennamen in den Lais der Marie de France, ZFSL. 49
(1927), 201 u. 381.
H. Gelzer, Mabon, ZF'SL. 47 (1925), 73.

A

1. Hoépffner, La tradition manuscrite des Lais de Marie de France,
Neoph. 12 (1926), 1 u. 85.

EK. Levi, Maria di Francia e le abbazie d’Inghilterra, Arch. Rom. 5

(1921), 472. Rez. Neoph. 24 (1923), 54 (A. Wallenskoeld).

Google

450 Evolution of Arthurian Romance.

E. Levi, Sulla cronologia delle opere di Maria di Francia, Nuovi
Studi medievali 1 (1923), 40.

— Troveri ed abbazie, Firenze 1925, Archivo Storico Italiano
1925, 1. Rez. Rom. 53 (1927), 283 (M. Roques); Z.f.rom.Ph.
46 (1926), 503 (A. Hilka).

— Maria di Francia, Eliduc. Riveduto nel testo, con versione a fronte,
introduzione e commento, Firenze 1924, Biblioteca Sansoniana
stramera 33. Rez. Z.f.rom. Ph. 46 (1926), 503 (A. Hilka):
Neoph. 10 (1924), 63 (J. J. Salverda de Grave); Neuph. Mttg. 26
(1925), 59 (A. Wallenskoeld).

E. Lommatzsch, Le lai de Guingamor. — Le lai de Tydorel, Berlin
1922, Rom. Texte 6. Rez. ASNS. 144 (1923), 301 (O. Schultz-
Gora).

J. P. Me Keehan, Guillaume de Palerne: a medieval ,best seller”,
PMLA. 41 (1926), 785 (zum Bisclavret und zur Werwolfsage).

M. B. Ogle, The Orchard Scene in Tydorel and Sir Gowther, RR. 13
(1922) 37.

J. J. Salverda de (irave, Marie de France et Enéas, Neoph. 10
(1924), 56.

Kk. Warnke, Die Lais der Marie de France, mit vergleichenden An-
merkungen von R. Kohler nebst Erginzungen von J. Bolte und
einem Anhang “Der Lai von Guingamor hgb. von P. Kusel, Halle
1925, Bibl. norm. 3. Rez. ZFSL. 49 (1927), 116 (E. Brugger):
ASNS. 148 (1925), 316 (0. Schultz-Gora); Z.f.rom.Ph. 46 (1926),
314 (A. Hilka); RR. 16 (1925), 95 (H. F. Muller); MPh. 23
(1925/26), 233 (W. A. Nitze); Neoph. 11 (1926), 141 (Ek. Hopffner.

— Vier Lais der Marie de France, nach der Hs. des Brit. Mus. Harl.
978 mit Ein]. und Glossar hgb., Halle 1925, Sammlung rom.
Ubungstexte 2.

M. Wilmotte, Marie de France et Chrétien de Troyes, Rom. 52
(1926), 353.

Merlinsage.

H. Gelzer, Der Silenceroman von Heldris,de Cornuelle, Z.f. 20m. Ph.
47 (1927), 87.

J. J. Parry, The Date of the Vita Merlini, MPh. 22 (1924/25), 413.

— The Vita Merlini, Urbana 1925, University of Illinois Studies
in Language und Literature 10,3. Rez. ZFSL. 50 (1927).
368 (E. Brugger); Speculum 1 (1926), 353 (VJ. S. P. Tatlock):
JEGPh. 26 (1927), 423 (R. Loomis).

L. Allen Paton, Les Prophecies de Merlin, edited from Ms. 593 in
the Bibl. municipale of Rennes, New York 1926/27, 2 vols.

Google

Bibliographischer Nachtrag. 451

Tristansage.

V. de Bartholomaeis, Tristano, gli episodi principali della leggenda in
versioni francesi, spagnuole, e italiane, Bologna s.d. Rez. Rom.
49 (1923),'134 (A. Jeanroy).

E. Brugger, Loenois as Tristan's Home, MPh. 22 (1924/25), 159.
Rez. LGRPh. 46 (1925), 215 (W. Golther).

— Der Dichter Bledri-Bleheri-Breri, Z/'SL. 47 (1925), 162.

T. P. Cross, A Welsh Tristan Episode, Studies in Phil. 17 (1920),
93. Rez. Rev.celt. 38 (1920), 81 (J. Vendryes).

J. L. Deister, Bernhart de Ventadour’s Reference to the Tristan Story,
MPh. 19 (1922), 287.

J. Gombert, Eilhart von Oberg und Gottfried von Strabburg, Beitrag
zur Tristanforschung, Rotterdam 1927.

A. G. van Hamel, Tristan’s combat with the dragon, Rev. celt. 41
(1924), 331.

(+. L. Hamilton, Tristram’s coat of arms, MLR. 15 (1920), 425.

kK. Jansen, Tristan und Parzival, ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des
Mittelalters, Diss. Utrecht 1923.

A. Jeanroy, Quelques corrections au texte du Tristan de Béroul, Mé-
langes de philologie et dhistoire offerts a M. Antoine Thomas
par ses éléves et ses amis, Paris 1927, 227.

M. M. Jirmounsky, Quelques remarques sur la datation du _Tristan*
de Thomas, Arch. Rom. 11 (1927), 210.

J. Kelemina, Geschichte der Tristansage nach den Dichtungen des
Mittelalters, Wien 1923. Rez. Rom. 51 (1925), 597 (K. Faral);
LGRPh. 46 (1925), 149 (W. Golther).

R. Sh. Loomis, Tristram and the House of Anjou, MDR. 17 (1922), 24.

— The Romance of Tristram and Ysolt by Thomas of Britain, transl.
from the Old French ‘and Old Norse, New York 1923. Rez.
JEGPh. 23 (1924), 609 (J. J. Parry); LGRPh. 45 (1924), 313
(W. Golther); MPh. 214 (1923/4), 441 (L. E. Winfrey); PMLA. 38
(1923), 492 (H. G. Leach).

— Bleheris and the Tristram Story, MEN. 39 (1924), 319.

— Problems of the Tristan Legend: Bleheris; the Diarmaid parallel
and Thomas’ date, Rom, 53 (1927), 82.

KE. Loseth, Le Tristan et le Palaméde des manuscrits de Rome et de
Florence, Kristiania 1924. Rez. ZFSL. 48 (1926), 325 (K.
Brugger); Z.f.rom.Ph. 46 (1926), 504 (A. Hilka).

F. Lot, Encore Bleheri-Breri, Rom. 51 (1925), 397.

— Sur les deux Thomas, poétes anglo-normands du XII® siécle,
Rom. 33 (1927), 176.

Google

452 Evolution of Arthurian Romance.

M. Lot-Borodine, Tristan et Lancelot, Medieval Studies in memory
of Gertrude Schépperle Loomis, Paris and New York 1927, 21.

J. Loth, L’épée de Tristan, Comptes rendus de l’ Académie des In-
scriptions et Belles-Lettres de l'année 1923, p. 117. Rez. Rev.
celt. 40 (1923), 489 (J. Vendryes).

E. S. Murrell, Girart de Roussillon and the ,Tristan“ Poems, Chester-
field 1926. Rez. Rom. 53 (1927), 443 (M. Roques).

E. Nickel, Studien zum Liebesproblem bei Gottfried von StraBburg,
Kinigsberg 1927, Kénigsberger deutsche Forschungen, H. 1.

F. Ranke, Die Allegorie der Minnegrotte in Gottfrieds Tristan, Schriften
der Kénigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Jahr 2, Geisteswissen-
schaftliche Klasse, H. 2, Kénigsberg 1925. Rez. LGRPh. 48
(1927), 93 (A. Gitze); 46. Anzeiger zur Z.f.d. A. 64 (1927), 46
(J. F. D. Bléte).

— Tristan und Isolde, Miinchen 1925, Biicher des Mittelalters.
Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph. 46 (1926), 506 (A. Hilka); LGRPh. 47 (1926),
344 (W. Golther); MLN. 41 (1926), 546 (T. F. Crane); MLR.
22 (1927), 112 (R. Priebsch); 45. Anz. zur Z. f.d. A. 63 (1926),
179 (G. Ehrismann).

— Isoldes Gottesurteil, Medieval Studies in memory of Gertrude
Schépperle Loomis, Paris and New York 1927, 87.

J. H. Scholte, Eine Interpretationsfrage bei Gottfried von StraBbure,

feoph. 9 (1924), 172.

Q. Schultz-Gora, Zum ersten StraBburger Tristanfragment, ASS. tol
(1926), 95.

K. Sneyders de Vogel, Tristan et Isent, d’aprés des publications récentes,
Neoph. 1 (1916), 81.

R. Thurneysen, Eine irische Parallele zur Tristansage, Z.f.rom. Ph.
43 (1926), 3865.

W. A. Tregenza, The ‘Roman de Renart’ and the Tristan Poews,
MER. 19 (1924), 301.

J. Vendryes, Gertrude Schépperle (Mrs. Roger Loomis), Fev. celt. 40
(1923), 238.

E. Vinaver, Etudes sur le Tristan en prose. Les sources.les manu-
scrits, bibliographie, critique, Paris 1925. Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph. 46
(1926), 511 (A. Hilka); Nph.Mttg. 27 (1926), 109 (A. Langfors);
MLR. 22 (1927), 230 (C. Johnson); LGRPh. 48 (1927), 406
(W. Golther).

— Le roman de Tristan et Iseut dans l'veuvre de Thomas Malory,
Paris 1925. Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph. 46 (1926), 511 (A. Hilka); MLR.
22 (1927), 97 (E. K. Chambers); LGRPh. 48 (1927), 406
(W. Golther).

Google

Bibliographischer Nachtrag. 453

KE. Vinaver, The Love Potion in the primitive Tristan Romance, Me-
dieval Studies in memory of Gertrude Schépperle Loomis,
Paris and New York 1927, 75.

C. C. Wright, ,A entercer le pur Tristan“ (Folie Tristan d’Oxford,
Bédier's ed. 1. 846), RR. 12 (1921), 290.

Ile et Galeron.
Fr. A. G. Cowper, The new Manuscript of Ille et Galeron, MPh. 18
(1921), 601.
— The Sources of Ille et Galeron, MPh. 20 (1922/23), 35.

Chrestien de Troyes.

(. Cohen, Crestien de Troies, sa vie et son oeuvre, Revue des cours
et conférences 1926/27.

Fabrick, La construction relative dans Chrétien de Troyes, Diss.
Amsterdam, Paris 1924. Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph. 46 (1926), 495
(A. Hilka).

t. Gamillscheg, Chrestien li Gois, ZF'SL. 46 (1923), 183.

M. Gay, The Chronology of the earlier works of Crestien de Troyes,
RA. 14 (1923), 47.

Ch. Grimm, Chrestien de Troyes’s Attitude towards woman, RR. 16

(1925), 236.

F. E. Guyer, The Influence of Ovid on Crestien de Troyes, RR. 12
(1921), 97 u. 216. Rez. MLR. 17 (1922), 431 (J. Orr), dazu
Entgegnung 18 (1923), 240 (Guyer).

St. Hofer, Beitrige zu Chrestiens Werken, Z.f.rom. Ph. 41 (1921),
408: Zur Datierung des Erec. — Ovidiana und Minnelyrik. — Zur
Karre. — Zur Abfassungszeit des Gralromans.

Z.f.rom.Ph, 42 (1922), 343: Wace’s Brut und -Erec. — Wace
und Cligés. — Karre und Lai Yonec.

KE. Hépffner, Crestien de Troyes und Guillaume de Machaut, Z.f. rom.
Ph. 39 (1919), 627.

U. T. Holmes, Chronology of Chrétien de Troyes’ Works, AR. 16
(1925), 43

F. H. Titchener, The Romances of Chrétien de Troyes, RR. 16
(1925), 165.

re

in

Erec.
H. Sparnaay, Zu Erec-Gereint, Z.f-rom.Ph. 45 eee 53.
— Die Mabinogionfrage, GRM. 15 (1927), 444
~-~—— A. Taylor, The Motif of the vacant Stake in Folklore and Romance,
RR. 9 (1918), 21.

Google

454 Evolution of Arthurian Romance.

R. Zenker, Weiteres zur Mabinogionfrage, ZFSL. 48 (1926), 1: Der
Erec des Hartmann von Aue in seinem Verh&ltnis zu Chrétiens
Erec und zu dem Mabinogi von Gereint. Mit zwei Exkursen:
1. Fée Morgain (Fata Morgana) = irisch Morrigan. 2. Zum
Lanzelet des Ulrich von Zatzikhoven (Fortsetzung).

ZFESL. 48 (1926), 386: Die altnordische Erexsaga.

— Erekiana, RF'g. 40 (1927), 458.

Cligés.
A. Franz, Die reflektierte Handlung im Cligés, 7. f. rom. Ph. 47
(1927), 61.
Yvain.

A. Gilchrist Brodeur, The grateful Lion, PMLA. 39 (1924), 485.

W. Forster, Kristian von Troyes, Yvain (der Léwenritter) hgb. Zweite
unverainderte Aufl. mit einem Nachwort von A. Hilka, Halle 1926,
Rom. Bibl. Textausgabe. Rez. ZFSL. 50 (1928), 480 (E. Brugger);
ASNS. 152 (1927), 314 (O. Schultz-Gora).

F. E. Guyer, Some of the Latin Sources of Yvain, AR. 14 (1923), 286.

C. B. Lewis, The Function of the Gong in the Source of Chrestien
de Troyes’ Yvain, 7. f. rom. Ph. 47 (1927), 264.

Ek. Sattler, Das M&rchen vom ,,Retter in der Not” in Chrestiens
,Yvain* und in der Egilssaga, GRM. 3 (1911), 669.

_E. S. Sheldon, Notes on Forster's Edition of Yvain, RR. 10 (1919),

233; 12 (1921), 297.

H. Sparnaay, Zu Yvain-Owein, Z.f.rom. Ph. 46 (1926), 517.

k. Zenker, Ivain im TorverlieB, 7.f. d..A. 62 (1925), 49.

Gralsage (Allgemeines).

—— k. Burdach, Vorspiel. Gesammelte Schriften zur Geschichte des deut-
schen Geistes I, 1: Mittelalter, Halle 1925, p. 161: Longinus
und der Gral (1903). — p. 165: Der Ursprung der Grallegende
(1903). — p. 174: Der JudenspieB und die Longinussage (1916). —
p. 217: Der Longinusspeer in eschatologischem Lichte (1920).
Rez. 46. Anz. zur Z.f.d.A. 64 (1927), 140 (J. Schwietering); Nph.
Mttg. 27 (1926), 207 (H. Suolahti); Mus. 34 (1927), 69 (J. van Dam).

W. Golther, Parzival und der Gral, Stuttgart 1925. Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph.
46 (1926), 497 (A. Hilka); 45. Anz. zur Z.f.d.A. 63 (1926), 185
(J. F. D. Blite); Dt. Litztg. 1927, 151 (G. Rosenhagen).

R. Koechlin, Les ivoires gothiques, Paris 1924, 3 vols. Rez. Rom. 52
(1926), 566 (M. Roques).

—~ R. Palgen, Der Stein der Weisen, Quellenstudien zum Parzival, Breslau

Google

Bibliographischer Nachtrag. 455

1922. Rez. Zs.f.rom.Ph. 43 (1923), 497 (A. Hilka); 42. Anz.
zur Z.f.d.A. 60 (1923), 105 (J. F. D. Bléte).

J. A. Robinson, Two Glastonbury Legends: King Arthur and St. Joseph -”
of Arimathea, Cambridge 1926. Rez. Anglia, Beiblatt 38 (1927

-. Rohr, Parzival und der heilige Gral, eine neue Deutung. ymbolik

der Graldichtungen, Hildesheim 1922. Rez. LGRPh. 46 (1925),
214 (W. Golther).

H. Sparnaay, Verschmelzung legenhdarischer und weltlicher Motive in
der Poesie des Mittelalters, Groningen 1922. Rez. Rom. 53
(1927), 283 (M. Roques); LGRPh. 47 (1926), 7 (K. Wagner);
43. Anz. zur Z.f.d.A. 61 (1924), 63 (G. Ehrismann); JEGPh. 23
(1924), 591 (A. H. Krappe); Z.f.rom.Ph. 43 (1923), 499 (A. Hilka).

F. Witte, Die Sage vom heiligen Gral und die Liturgie, 2. f. christl.
Kunst 26 (1913), 103.

Chrestien’s Conte del Graal.
A. (. L. Brown, Did Chrétien identify the Grail with the Mass, MLN.
41 (1926), 226.
J. H. Scholte, Der rote Ritter, Neoph. 5 (1920), 115.

Peredur.

(x, Le Roux, Le roman de Pérédur, texte gallois traduit en breton,
avec une traduction francaise d’aprés J. Loth, Rennes 1923.
Rez. Rev.celt. 41 (1924), 260 (J. Loth).

IL. Mithlhausen, Untersuchung iiber das gegenseitige Verhdltnis von
Chrestiens Conte del Graal und dem kymrischen Prosaroman von
Peredur, 7. f. rom. Ph. 43 (1923), 465.

—- Ein Beitrag zur Mabinogionfrage: Peredur — Perceval, GRM. 10
(1922), 367.

L. WeiBgerber, Die Hss. des Peredur ab Efrawc in ihrer Bedeutung
fiir die kymrische Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte, Z.f.celt.Ph.
15 (1925), 66. Rez. ZFSL. 48 (1925), 326 (E. Brugger).

— Angebliche Verwirrungen im Peredur, RFg. 60 (1927), 483.

J. I. Weston, Notes on the Grail Romances: Caput Johannis, Caput
Christi, Rom. 49 (1923), 273.

k. Zenker, Zu Perceval-Peredur, GRM. 11 (1923), 240.

— Nochmals Peredur-Perceval, RF'g. 40 (1926), 251.

Sir Perceval.

A.C. L. Brown, The Grail and the English Sir Perceval, MPh. 16
(1918/19), 553; 17 (1919/20), 361; 18 (1920/21), 201 u. 661; 22
(1924/25), 79 u.113. Rez. LGRPh. 46 (1925), 283 (W. Golther);
MLR. 21 (1926), 78 (A. Bell); JEGPh. 25 (1926), 433 (J.J. Parry).

Google

456 Evolution of Arthurian Romance.

Wolfram’s Parzival.

E. K. Heller, Wolfram’s Relationship to the Crestien Mss., .WLN. 41
(1926), 520.

W. Hertz, Parzival von Wolfram von Eschenbach, mit einem Nach-
trag von Gustav Rosenhagen, 7. Aufl., Stuttgart u. Berlin, 1927.

E. Karg-Gasterstédt, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Wolframs Parzival,
Halle 1925. Rez. 45. Anz. zur Z.f.d.A. 63 (1926), 141 (J. F.
D. Bléte); ASNS. 152 (1927), 279 (Th. Frings); MLR. 21 (1926),
336 (M. Fr. Richey); JEGPh. 25 (1926), 452 (E. K. Heller).

Georg Misch, Wolframs Parzival, eine Studie zur Geschichte der
Autobiographie, Dt. Vierteljahrsschrift fiir Litwiss. u. Geistes-
gesch. 5 (1927), 213.

F. Neumann, Wolfram von Eschenbachs Ritterideal, Dt. Vierteljahrs-
schrift fiir Litwiss. u. Geistesgesch. 5 (1927), 9—24.

M. Ramondt, Zur Jugendgeschichte des Parzival, Neoph. 9 (1923), 15.

M. F. Richey, Gahmuret Anschevin, a Contribution to the Study of
Wolfram von Eschenbach, Oxford 1923. Rez. Z.f.d.Ph. 51 (1926),
124 (G. Rosenhagen); 44. Anz. zur Z.f£.d.A. 62 (1925), 23 (J. F.
D. Blite); MLR. 20 (1925), 99 (E. Purdie).

— Schionatulander and Sigune. An Episode from the Story of Par-
zival and the Graal as related by Wolfram von Eschenbach, inter-
preted and discussed, London 1927.

G. Réthe, Der Dichter des Parzival, Rektoratsrede, Berlin 1924.

A. Schreiber, Neue Bausteine zu einer Lebensgeschichte Wolframs von
Eschenbach, Frankfurt 1922. Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph. 44 (1924), 744
(G. Miller) u. 750 (A. Hilka); LGRPh. 48 (1927), 252 (G. Ehris-
mann); 45, Anz. zur Z.f.d.A. 63 (1926), 9 (F. Ranke); MLR. 18
(1923), 360 (M. F. Richey).

Robert de Boron.

G;. Huet, La chronologie dans ]’euvre de Robert de Boron, JA. 32
(1921), 138.

W. A. Nitze, The Date of Robert de Borron’s ,metrical Joseph”, The
Manly Anniversary Studies in Language and Literature,
Chicago 1923, 300. Rez. Rom. 53 (1927) 445 (M. Roques).

- - The Identity of Brons in Robert de Borron’s Metrical Joseph,
Medieval Studies in memory of Gertrude Schépperle Loomis,
Paris and New York 1927, 135.

—- Robert de Boron, Le roman de |’Estoire dou Graal, Paris 1927,
Les Classiques fr. du moyen dge 57.

Chrestien’s Gralfortsetzer und die Elucidation.

E. Brugger, Bliocadran, the Father of Perceval, Medieval Studies in

Google

Bibltographischer Nachtrag. 457

memory of Gertrude Schépperle Loomis, Paris and New York
1927, 147.

k. J. Peebles, The Children in the Tree, Medieval Studies in memory
of Gertrude Schépperle Loomis, Paris and New York 1927,
285.

J. L. Weston, Who was Brian des Illes?, MPh. 22 (1924/25), 405.

M. Williams, Gerbert de Montreuil, la continuation de Perceval, t. I,
v. 1-7020, Paris 1922, Les Classiques fr. du moyen dge 28;
t. II, v. 7021-14078, Paris 1925, Les Classiques fr. du m.
age 50.

Prosagralromane.

A. Pauphilet, Le roman en prose de , Perceval”, Mélanges d’histoire
du moyen age offerts a M. F. Lot par ses amis et ses éléves,
Paris 1925, 603.

J. L. Weston, The Perlesvaus and the Story of the Coward Knight,
MPh. 20 (1922/23), 379.

— The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the cyclic Romances, Rom. 51
(1925), 348.

FE. Anitchkof, Le Galaad da Lancelot-Graal et les Galaads de la Bible,
Rom. 53 (1927), 388.

A. Beaunier, Les nouveaux romans de la Table Ronde, Rev. des deux
mondes, 94° année, t. 22 (1924), 205.

J. D. Bruce, The Development of the Mort Arthur Theme in Mediaeval
Romance, RA. 4 (1913), 403. Rez. ZFSL. 47 (1925), 98 (KE.
Brugger).

L. Gilson, La mystique de la grace dans la Queste del Saint Graal,
Rom. 51 (1925), 321.

F. J. Johnson, Grenoble Ms. 866, MLR. 22 (1927), 322 (enthalt ein
Fragment der Estoire del Saint Graal, vgl. H. O. Sommer, The
Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances I (1909), 93.

F. Lot, L’épée de Lancelot du Lac, Rom. 50 (1924), 99.

— L'origine du nom de Lancelot, Rom. 51 (1925), 423.

M. Lot-Borodine, Le double esprit et l’unité du Lancelot” en prose,
Mélanges Whistoire du moyen dge offerts a M. F. Lot par
ses amis et ses éléves, Paris 1925, 477.

M. Lot-Borodine et Gertrude Schépperle, Lancelot el Galaad mis en
nouveau langage, avec une introduction par R. Loomis, New York
1926.

E. 5S. Murrel, Some new Arthurian Manuscripts in the Bodleian Li-
brary, MOR. 22 (1927), 87.

A. Pauphilet, La Queste del Saint Graal, roman du XI[II® siécle, Paris
1923, Les Classiques fr. du moyen dge 33.

Google

458 Evolution of Arthurian Romance.

A. Pauphilet, Sur les mss. de la Mort d’Artus, Mélanges de phil.
et @histoire offerts a M. A. Thomas par ses éléves et ses amis,
Paris 1927, 341.

H. O. Sommer, The Structure of Le Livre d’Artus and its Function
in the Evolution of the Arthurian Prose Romances, London and
Paris 1914. Rez. ZFSL. 47 (1925), 319 (KE. Brugger).

J. L. Weston, The relative Position of the ‘Perceval’ and ‘Galahad
Romances, MLR. 21 (1926), 385.

Sonstige Artusromane.

Li Biaus Desconneiis. U. T. Holmes, Renaut de Beanjeu, RR. 18
(1927), 334.

Claris et Laris. L. Jordan, Der Roman de Claris et Laris, ein
Sprachdenkmal des oberen Moseltals aus dem Jahre 1268, Arch.
Rom. 9 (1925), 5.

Fergus. E. Brugger, .Huon de Bordeaux” and .Fergus*, MER. 20
(1925), 158.

L. Jordan, Zum altfranzésischen Fergusroman, 7.f.rom.Ph.43 (1923), 154.

QO. Schultz-Gora, Zum Text des Fergus, 7.f.rom.Ph. 44 (1924), 102.

Galeran de Bretagne. L. Foulet, Jean Renart, Galeran de Bretagne,
roman du XIIT® siécle, Paris 1925, Les Classiques fr. du moyen
dge 37.

L. Foulet, Galeran et Jean Renart, Rom. 51 (1925), 76.

— Galeran et les dix compagnons de Bretagne, ftom. 51 (1925), 116.

Ch. V. Langlois, La vie en France au moyen Age de la fin du XIl°
au milieu du XIV® siécle d’aprés des romans mondains du temps,
Paris 1924, 1.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. M. Férster, Der Name des
Green Knight, ASNS. 147 (1924), 194.

E. v. Schaubert, Der englische Ursprung von Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, Enyl. Studien 57 (1923), 330.

J.R.R. Tolkien and E. V. Gordon, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,
edited, Oxford and New York 1925. Rez. MPh. 23 (1925/26),
246 (J. R. Hulbert); MLN. 41 (1926), 397 (R. J. Menner); MLR.
22 (1927), 451 (C. Brett); JEGPh. 26 (1927), 248 (0. E. Emer-
son); ASNS. 149 (1925), 172 (0. Schultz-Gora).

Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Walwanii. £. Brugger, Zu
Historia Meriadoci und De Ortu Walwanii, ZF'SL. 46 (1923), 247
u. 406.

P. Rayna, Sono il De ortu Walwanii e I'Historia Meriadoci opera di
un medesime autore?, Medieval Studies in memory of Gertrude
Schépperle Loomis, Paris and New York 1927, 1.

Google

Bibliographischer Nachtrag. 459

Hunbaut. A. Hilka, Plagiate in altfranzisischen Dichtungen,
47 (1924), 60. Rez. Rom. 51 (1925), 443 (A. Langfors). ZF'SL.

Jaufre. H. Breuer, Jaufre, ein altprovenzalischer Abenteuerroman des
XIII. Jahrhunderts hgb., Géttingen 1925, Ges.f.rom.Lit. 46. Rez.
ASNS. 150 (1926), 305 (0. Schultz-Gora); MLR. 21 (1926), 455
(H. J. Chaytor).

H. Breuer, Zum altprov. Abenteuerroman Jaufre, Z. f. rom. Ph. 46
(1926), 411.

— Berichtigungen zur Ausgabe des Jaufre, Z.f.rom.Ph. 46 (1926), 80.

— Jaufre, altprov. Abenteuerroman des XIII. Jahrhunderts hgb., Halle
1927, Sammlung rom. Ubungstexte 12.

Sone de Nansai. Ch.-V. Langlois s. 0., p. 286.

Yder. St. Hofer, Zum Yderroman, Z.f.rom.Ph. 42 (1922), 108.

Vel. fiir Artusromane auch A. Hilka, Die anglonormannische Kompila-
tion didaktisch-epischen Inhalts der Hs. Bibl. nat. nouv. acq. fr.
7517, ZESL. 47 (1925), 423.

Anteil Italiens.

KE. G. Gardner, Arthurian Matter in the ,Mare amoroso", MLR. 20
(1925), 329.

— The Holy Graal in Italian Literature, MLR. 20 (1925), 443.

J. Gombert, Entlegene Spuren des Tristan im Dekameron?, Neoph. 7
(1922), 136.

k. F. Griffiths, Li Chantari di Lancellotto, edited with an introduction,
notes and glossary, Oxford 1924. Rez. Z.f.rom.Ph. 45 (1925),
349 (B. Wiese); ASNS. 149 (126), 320 (0. Schultz-Gora); MLR. 20
(1925), 214 (E. G. Gardner).

Anteil Spaniens.
Ph. St. Barto, The subterranean Grail Paradise of Cervantes, PMLA.
38 (1923), 401.
P. Bohigas Balaguer, El] Lanzarote” espafiol del manuscrito 9611
de la Bibl. Nacional, Rev. de fil. esp. 11 (1924), 282.
— Los textos espafioles y gallego-portugueses de la Demanda del
santo Grial, Madrid 1925, Rev. de fil. esp., Anejo VII.

— Mas sobre el ,Lanzarote” espafiol, Rev. de fil. esp. 12 (1925), 60.
W. J. Entwistle, A note on Ferndn Pérez de Guzman “Mar de hi-
storias, cap. 96 (Del santo grial), MUR. 18 (1923), 206.

— Geoffroy of Monmouth and Spanish Literature, MLR. 17 (1922), 381.
— The Adventure of ,Le cerf au pied blanc” in Spanish and else-

where, MER. 18 (1923), 435.
— The Arthurian Legend in the Literatures of the Spanish Peninsula,

Google

GaAb-215

460 Evolution of Arthurian Romance.

London and Toronto 1925. Rez. MLR. 21 (1925), 333 (E. G.
Gardner); Rev. de fil. esp. 13 (1926), 294 (P. Bohigas); MPh. 24
(1927), 481 (G. T. Northup).

kx. Pietsch, The Madrid Manuscripts of the Spanish Grail Fragments,
MPh. 18 (1920/21), 147 u. 591.

= ~ Spanish Grail Fragments. El Libro de Josep Abarimatia; La
Estoria de Merlin; Langarote, edited from the unique manuscript,
vol. I: Texts; I: Commentary, The Modern Monographs of the
University of Chicago 1924/25. Rez. ASNS. 151 (1926), 155
(F. Kriiger); Nph. Mttg. 27 (1926), 115 (O. J. Tallgren); Rom.
53 (1927), 441 (M. Roques); LGRPh. 47 (1926), 366 (L. Spitzer);
MLR. 20 (1925), 357 (W. J. Entwistle); MPh. 24 (1927), 355
J. E. Gillet); Rev. de fil. esp. 11 (1924), 428 (P. Bohigas y J. Val-
lejo) u. 13 (1926), 67 (P. Bohigas).

H. Thomas, Spanish and Portuguese Romances of Chivalry, Cambridge
1920. Rez. MPh. 21 (1923/24), 223 (G. T. Northup); Z.f.rom.Ph.
44 (1924), 764 (A. Hilka); Rev.d.l.rom. 62 (1923), 446 (J. Ronjat).

Google

Ol ateliat-]migean

swe, ’ : -_ (Vie
Digitized by \_+ eyed | UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Digitized by

N}
m “enok isd onthe" »°
ina below

-->

Usually books are lent out for two weeks, but
there are exceptions and the borrower should
note carefully the date stamped above. Fines
are charged for over-due books at the rate of
five cents a day: for reserved books there are
special rates and regulations. Books must be
presented at the desk if renewal is desired.

Oo} ale liar] minelan

OO l UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

+

-—_—e—— fo as

Olaleliat-]miaedan

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

+.4+.¢+ @8e,r

rt / . > i U »
¢ j —- rer —@ 1 7 ; . ate * ‘ re ’ ¢ . Ie? bd =» “
> oe 4 7 ws "A " f oe oq 4- wr, 4 s 4 Ay . -
Tas oh ’ Pe PoP rt 05099 Art us : Z
: ‘ . x » : of fue 4 td 4 te : * ~~ ¢ ‘
. 4 4 * iw eye * . 7 7 i ’ Z
, 4 } : 1 4 - “ rie " - . ' : ree
« * ‘ 7 ‘
sae “ > > * ~ 5 . rd *
* ‘ m ‘ " : .
o~* * ° nd * 2 ull ?
* 4 y : ws ?
vy ‘ Pe 4 ‘ aut
\¢ 4
’

yor “ae |
7 Lost: ; oe nde ed palasere te fet 05S ie ‘ . 4 cies ohh ot 4 wobs - tito
a

44704 46
* -
IF yf Jy Ay

7
ps . : ‘ * ya dD) Doak ,

4 Pr ‘ ? a i.
> ‘ -o+ 2" ++
' ead ys 4 + *“ 44 ‘ ae" . ne
i 4 r ' « be . * yy sure ” = » P 4 5? A ek 4 7 -
M hr r . > 4 ° : Fb *~+ , * . r iin Rede een!
eit ¥ A Syoh Sr igtroes tara
7 ; A m : ‘ : - 4 ' *¢ one, a
: “~ ‘- Fu rere 4 ée4 7 - 7 J ] + ogy | A we be. , } - :
‘* s , » ore ° - , e ve y i. -
+7 P . ‘ : 4p heen
ts a3 : fy ; 8 rip hys pay te?
| r= ob Ly. i + : : a ol 44 7 y F " ~” ;
tt - S. : , : ‘gi ote ‘ ae
: ; . : : es ie

—
~
.

oe rs

fab an ; : ” ‘ ° : al : ~ :
Sa * sigh ey) adats® RY Ss feet a
: ~ ints :

. “>

*”

P 4” . : - ” : - 7 Fa baht |
y

ris

ee
+ a

rr,

.-

rt
a : 4
~e oe.

-
-

,

“=

~
Watts
ts

a :

ate ores Te
yy : S : Py yy : Cte

“ae ‘of é - a

;

ye
-
3 -
-
5
.

a
2
7
-
:

t33

ohne et

it
‘

vy : ar py ir bee? m ; -
ay yy ate” 4 9m
ae | ae ote By Pea ipo Paap LP EDP SE Sir eae
+4 . : 4 tet eds of | 7 =) Fre - : f ; :
‘ A * ‘ - J oy Tybee, 4 : : : .
; ' Pe rye ale es “ 2 nan

re - 7 SA 4 , 4 ; : - ole . risteet » - nS

’
‘rs , : : ; 5 : . = b y Z : bd a be : rt
= ; : . 7 PY . : ; “ ie
: 7 “ P ¢ 6 aa.) ‘
re a > - , . f f .
t 7 , I 9 . . ory 5 y - ro ie 7 . . , a
: ‘ , » 4 : : p : :
ma F : v - : 4 :
A . “ * 7 : ° 7
|" + : by 4 a
’ Pf a
- o hy

43 | Fas : : ; : : *

f Tes Satis if it

s
s

re 7 : af aos aert °
| ; Pt ist it

+
+
~

% * tetet:
;

on
-—
‘ate
‘+

~
hits
ay 33,
a

Sie

= restee
14 %yt

| ae Baas 7 is :
fesianusat3: | wi pay | Wy gus 2) Ht Bie :
1/8 2 : ; ie 4 feat ati 2 * i : ot | . ry! Aw ( : | é fe é : | i :

ry ye : 1 . ; hippy ty. . iy). | srs : . ad sty de :

) beset 3 yf Tae!
ais!
7

>t!

t%,

+4

a‘
oy+3 44 - +
-
*,?
oan

ats

sc trse!

~~
;
ce

o9¢ phe! e?) -
ri ode
* 1

peas

eee *
a
Ke -

'
-*
3,25454
-

-_—_——- Zs
_
a

——

ay . i
iy er 4}
Sher <r 4

rotic’

2
3S

> Fe
~~
: : state
bh, > «
tes rant =i
ene Seton beet a

} lebet ot
eh ory: .
it wes yt melee dl, : + 2 test eH
- s - a : : 4 ; ect ob . rt tp r ; 7 4 3 -
Basie if Hepa, mas | | SU aR ata ay i aah
t Ad hd a bebe seibedetes titties ayy ibe Mobelatatit ay
“t : 93 Py), Jeers tif . Hi; Pee tpt
t ; 4 ; he By . i | Sty attra He yy Tet
; | ; i ; é . : a! Py “ if i 1 : : “fabs , 4 a : : : UV Teetets
ai: vy yey yey ay Wes lsy 44, 4H ph Ht 7 3 Py Bibb aaah

-
part a eee

is
=
am

;
. Hi
ne

os
4